Mamiya 7ii or Canon 5D Mark iii

[john_boyd9]

<p>Some great tips, Thank you guys<br /> One last question, which of these three have the best optics? W67, 7ii, Rolleiflex? <br /> And does Mamiya 7ii and Mamiya 6 have the same lenses? If the lenses are the same quality, I don't see any advantage to pay that much money for the 7ii when i can get a Mamiya 6 for half the price. <br /> And am i crazy for wanting to buy something like this? <br /> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Excellnt-Canon-7-Black-50mm-F0-95-Lens-Overhauled-Very-Rare-935-/181284778953?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a356a33c9<br /> I have saved up $4000 and being young and inexperienced I don't think my choices will be helping my photography. It seems like I'm mostly trying to go after my interests. But really am i crazy for for wanting this?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As far as I know, the lenses of the 6 are as excellent as those of the 7 (or very small differences). They are not interchangeable with those of the 7.</p>

<p>The Canon RF has a damaged cloth curtain (see photo) which may not bode well for the condition of the rest of it (an old RF camera). The price reflects mainly the market value of the 0.95 lens (not sure this lens was very favourably reviewed when it came out, or nowadays. Someone mentioned to me that the true transmission at full aperture is not equivalent to an f number of 0.95, probably just over f1 and it likely has huge light fall-off in a design and with glasses of that era). It is also sort of apples and oranges to what you are referring to in MF cameras, no? The W67 lens does not have a wide aperture (OK for landscapes and often tripod use and closed down a bit), whereas the Mamiya 6 standard lens is f3.5 (also true for the Fuji GW670 and GW690 (same f3.5 lens on both) which is good for street shooting with relatively fast films (The 6 can experience winder problems mainly if it is roughly handled (also scarcity of those parts), whereas the 7 is probably more easily serviced and has optics nearly as fast, although overall a bit bulkier in handling.</p>

 

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Technically speaking the Mamiya 7 has the best lenses, about 10% higher resolution than the Mamiya 6, possibly because they were designed later. But if you're just printing square then you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. But if you're shooting 6x6 in order to crop to a 645 rectangle, then the 6x7 format, with 2x the area of 645 will produce much nicer prints.</p>

<p>Also not much difference between the Mamiya 6 lenses and the Rollei except the Mamiya 6 lenses are multicoated and so have a little higher contrast. But remember what I said about lens design philosophy, the Rollei lenses will render tones differently than the Mamiya.</p>

<p>Also, one advantage of the Rollei is that in using a TLR for street photography you can compose and shoot from waist level, with most people (who are unfamiliar with TLRs) not realizing you are actually taking a picture. I've even heard of photographers attaching a long cable release to it and having their hands in their pockets when they shoot, after prefocusing of course.</p>

<p>But since you have some money saved you might consider buying both the Mamiya 6 and any decent Rollei, testing them, and then selling the one you don't want. Even an old Tessar or Xenar will produce excellent results in the center (being a 4 element design the extreme corners are never very sharp). These 1950s Rolleis can be bought in the $300-$500 range depending on condition, such as these:<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROLLEIFLEX-ZEISS-OPTON-TESSAR-1-3-5-F-75-MM-/400619038855?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item5d46c16887</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolleiflex-w-Heidosmat-Schneider-Xenar-75-3-5-Serial-1702943-Camera-w-Film-/131072938587?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item1e848e525b</p>

<p>The main consideration, though, is are you printing square or rectangular? If square the you can easily go with the Mamiya 6 or Rollei, but if rectangular then the Mamiya 7 will produce the best results (you just can't focus very close, but then you have the RZ for that).</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I have read the film tonal range thing thousands of times... it could be technically true, but in the real life things are not that easy, more likely, it`s the opposite.<br /> <br /> I use to shoot Mamiya (RZ and 6), along with large format, 35mm and digital. I process and print in my own darkroom. In my experience, sharpness is more related to an exquisite technique, the way you use film film&developer, processing skills, and printing size, instead than one or another camera model and lens.<br /> <br /> I agree with Mike, with traditional printing you can get extremely nice results in B&W, but it`s way more difficult compared to digital. Difficult means that many times you cannot get what you`re looking for, or results are a botch. I abandoned traditional in color because I find digital much easier and better, in all ways.<br /> <br /> Just make a little mistake while developing film (quite common on me) and any extra advantage is lost. I don`t have a drum scanner, so film scanning also modify the charm of film, or directly send it to the trash, to my taste.<br /> <br /> IMHO, the RZ is one of the best cameras made for professional purposes ever. I don`t use Hasselblad, I once checked a 503CW and seem to me an equal if not better option (the Hasselblad have a much nicer build). Format wise, I don`t see a valuable difference when using 120 film... it`s just square or rectangular, to your taste. One of the sides will be always the same, so sharpness is the same.<br /> <br /> You already have them both. The only advantage of the 6 (or 7) is that is a really "handholdable" camera, and the BIG drawback is that are not reflex (focus, DoF, viewing). The 7 could be a 10% sharper, but I wonder if that difference is worth it for your kind of photography.<br /> <br /> On the charts, Mamiya 7 and some Hasselblad lenses use to win; most people think this because were <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">C. Perez`testing results</a> with a few lenses. In real life, I`m pretty sure you will not notice the difference unless in right testing conditions. I have some very good Planar 80 pics at home, and I made equally good RZ110 pics. Just make something wrong with film or technique, and the difference will be huge, whatever you use.<br /> <br /> Excuse me, but I`m quite skeptical about this topic. I see you`re a bit lost, specially when you consider the Canon 7 with such high price (but very low value to my taste) lens for $4000!!<br />I think you`re affected by any gear acquisition syndrome, so buying reasons are quite subjective. (BTW, my best antidote to the GAS is to go out and shoot! :)<br /> Well, I don`t know what to say. Maybe the RF Mamiyas could provide anything different to your bag.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>With the 75mm lens retracted the 6 is quite a small camera. Extended only adds two to three inches or so to the camera depth. It's not a perfect camera (which is?) and keeping it in service is aided by exercising it and using it regularly. For about 1000 to 1300$ US you can get a mint example.</p><div></div>

[john_boyd9]

<p>Thank you everyone<br>

After a lot of thinking I think i will upgrade my digital camera to a 5D mark iii. That way i have a full frame digital camera that i can use for weddings and later on in my carreer for my business. <br>

As for the MF, since I want something small I think i will go with either a Mamiya 6 or a Makina w67. The reason i keep including Makina w67 is because of the f/2.8 lens. That is if i find any mint bodies on ebay for around $1000. <br>

I can also get an Rolleiflex with the 2.8 lens as Mike suggested. <br>

So between these 3 which one would you go with? <br>

Rolleiflex with a 2.8 lens, Makina W67 with the nikkor 2.8 lens, or a Mamiya 6 with a 75 3.5 lens?<br>

Which gives the best image? </p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>All have high lens quality. But as I said earlier, are you printing square or rectangle? A 6x7 neg. will always produce a higher quality rectangular print than one from a 6x6. Also, which do you prefer, a wide angle lens (W67) or a "normal" one (Rollei and Mamiya 6)?</p>

<p>But handling is also important. If possible try to actually get your hands on these bodies to see if you have a preference (maybe your school has some). But ultimately you really won't know until you actually use, and if possible, test them against each other.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p> Another thing to consider is repairability. Rollei will always be repairable because of its huge popularity and user base, but I'm not sure about the other two. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The 55mm lens of the W67 Makina has a maximum opening of f4.5. The 67 and slightly upgraded 670 have 80mm f2.8 optics.</p>

<p>Which of the three cameras and lenses you mention gives the best image? Too close to call, so it is not important to compare their IQ but to consider the other features and qualities thart may be important to you.</p>

<p>Did you read the comments of José? They are right on. The weakest link in your photos will not be due to which camera of the three you may choose, but more importantly it will depend upon your experience of processing to get a quality negative to print or scan and print, and the same in regard to your darkroom or lightroom processing. It doesn't get more complicated than that.</p>

[john_boyd9]

<p>@ Mike, Personally i prefer square format. I don't have access to any of those bodies except the Mamiya 7 which i don't think i will get. <br>

@Arthur, yes i did read his comments and it was very helpful. I don't do my own processing. Do different labs do the processing differently? How can i find a good lab where i live? Is there like any specific type of processing that i should look for? like any specific chemicals and stuff. And most of my photos are shot with a 80mm lens and i find that perfect for my use. <br>

I was able to do some great close ups (flowers, portraits) with the Mamiya C330, i can't do that with the Mamiya 6 or the W67, correct? <br>

And thank you both and everyone else who commented on this topic and helped me out. </p>

[john_photos]

<p>I shot a Mamiya 7 with the 50mm for a number of years. It required an external viewfinder and was a royal pain to use. However, optically perfect. No strange distortion typical of SLR retrofocus lenses. The 50mm on the Mamiya 6 sounds like a great wide angle lens. No external viewfinder. Just be careful purchasing the 6 used. Anything available now is likely to be very very used and the winding mechanism in particular is not a sourcable part should it fail.</p>

[jimpete]

<p>It looks like you would also be a candidate for a Holga 120N 6x6. They are cheap and a lot of fun and from your portfolio you would probably get some really cool shots.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Since you have access to the 7 cut the center out and compare it to your Hasselblad to see if you'd like the 6.</p>

<p>Personally, I've yet to find a more pleasurable and fun camera to use than a Rollei, though perhaps it's a combination of appreciating precision equipment, liking the "retro" look and feel of using it and its high quality optics (same reasons I love the Retina 3c). And you can also do close ups with them using the Rollinar attachments. It's also very light weight and quiet, but then so are the Mamiya rangefinders. Of course, I've owned six over the years and so it's possible I am a bit prejudiced. But I never stuck with them because I found a fixed lens too limiting. But if I <em>was</em> satisfied with just one focal length then I'd still probably be shooting it, at least in B&W (because you can easily process and print it yourself).</p>

<p>But given your options, any decision you make won't be a bad one.</p>

 

[john_boyd9]

<p>I just checked my email and 4 of my photos have been selected to be exhibited in a gallery on January 30th. Couple students from my school will be represented and I'm one of the ones being chosen. The exhibition is taking place in one of the best galleries in Toronto. Its just amazing how I'm talking about wanting to make it to the galleries and i just get my first gallery experience. What a day and this for sure will be the best Christmas of my life. I still can't believe the fact that I was talking about it and now I'm there. Its like God was reading my posts all along! </p>

[john_boyd9]

<p>.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>There's a close up attachment for the Mamiya 6 and 75mm lens. Works fine within its range (1/2 the distance of the otherwise close focus setting of the 75mm normal lens) and it has parallax correction.</p>

[AlanKlein]

John. Congrats. You're on your way.

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>After a lot of thinking I think i will upgrade my digital camera to a 5D mark iii. That way i have a full frame digital camera that i can use for weddings and later on in my carreer for my business.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I commend you for for deciding with your head instead of your heart. You have DEFINITELY made the right decision. The running costs will be much less, reliability will probably be higher and it will also save a lot of time. </p>

<p>Whilst I love rangefinders I would never use one for work for a paying client because you can never truly be sure you've got the right shot until the film has been developed. With a rangefinder you can't see if you're getting lens flare and you can't be 100% sure of the framing, especially at close distances like portrait photography. </p>

<p>Also, people often think that the medium format cameras give a shallower depth of field for portraits but in reality they don't. You won't find a medium format lens with an f/1.2 aperture. Most are f/2.8 or slower. Couple that with the low ISO of film and you end up struggling for light in anything but the brightest of situations.</p>

<p>Keep your current medium format gear for when you just want to have some fun with film. </p>

[john_boyd9]

<p>So i'm upgrading my 7d to a 5d but i also want to get a better MF with a greater lens and something that less heavy and more portable. I found some used Mamiya 7s and 6s on Ebay and also an Plaubel Makina with a 2.8 lens. I don't know why but the Makina seems to grab my interest more compared to the Mamiya's. The pictures i saw on flickr taken with this camera just look superb!<br>

Do you think any of these are a good deal? <br>

<br>

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/EXC-Plaubel-Makina-67-6x7-RF-w-Nikkor-80mm-f-2-8-Kit-from-Japan-/321220111327?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item4aca35ebdf&_uhb=1<br>

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Mamiya-New-Mamiya-6-Camera-w-G-75mm-F3-5-L-Lens-Excellent-from-Japan-103-/281227013613?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item417a6faded&_uhb=1<br>

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/EXC-Mamiya-7-w-N-80mm-F-4-L-kit-Champagne-80-F4-/221298603109?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item33866cb465&_uhb=1<br>

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/rolleiflex-2-8-rollei-film-camera-xenotar-80mm-2-8-excellent-/191004305317?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item2c78be67a5&_uhb=1</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I fully enjoyed my Makina 670 (more recent than the 67 but very similar in performance, except additional 220 film capability, perhaps a mute point these days) but have the following to suggest as drawbacks in particular situations:</p>

<ul>

<li>the shutter is very loud</li>

<li>the meter in mine didn't last very long</li>

<li>the frame to frame spacing was not consistent, differing interframe spaces and sometimes overlapping frames; real care has to be taken to be sure the film advances fully each time you wind on</li>

<li>folding and opening the bellows is OK but can sometimes be a bit finicky; that could have been improved by DOI, but they went out of business I think when their main business of photo processing for the millions went sour in Japan;</li>

<li>It is not too good in rain or cold weather, owing to the exposed bellows.</li>

</ul>

<p>Having said that (which is just one person's experience), I love the camera and have made some great shots with it mainly in B&W. It is a brilliant conception (developed in part at a German university) and I just wish its production would have been in the class of that of some majors. I sold it to buy the Mamiya 6 which has three great objectives. The Nikkor 80 mm f2.8 is probably as good as the Mamiya or Zeiss optics. At least my 16 x 20 and greater prints attest to that possibility.</p>

<p>Re other eBay listings: Beware of anyone with less than a 100% confidence rating. The two Mamiyas are minimally excellent condition but you can do better at theses prices. I trust a Japanese seller who I think goes by the Bay name of Arrowsmith. Bought two Mamiya 6s from him over a period and they were both mint and fine performers. Sold one of them, but have also been a bit burnt by the condition of Mamiya optics from other sellers. Lots of Mamiyas and other MF equipment in Japan, but a lot of them I have seen in North America on the Bay are less than perfect.</p>

[john_boyd9]

<p>@ Arthur <br>

Thanks for the info <br>

What is a good price for a used Makina?<br>

And i tried searching for Arrowsmith on ebay and couldn't find his profile. Can you send me his information? And if anyone else know a seller i can trust on ebay please do let me know.<br>

</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>It was a while ago (about 7 years) that I sold my Makina in excellent condition, at 1500$, so the value today is certainly between that and 2000$, but you are best to check finished sales on eBay if you are a member. Given that they are perhaps not so easily repairable these days I would personally not go over 2000$ (and if I really wanted one). I remember now the Japanese seller's name (Astrosmith). He and one or two others in Japan come up fairly regularly for Mamiyas, probably because there are many in Japan. He has one now at 999$ (scuffed and missing paint in one spot) and another at 1295$ which is clean except slight crimps in the internal bellows). I didn't look at the full listings. if you aren't in a hurry and can ask him questions you can probably make sure you get a good one.</p>

[malcom_knight]

<p>You're not missing anything with film. Today's digitals are way better. I own medium format cameras Nikon 9000 scanner and Epson 3880. I also have an older digital Dslr 12mp crop sensor. LOL. It can handle its own against my Mamiya 645. They have almost the same resolution....I can only imagine what a Nikon D800 can do. I plan on scanning all my film and selling the Nikon 9000 and upgrading to the D800 or Canon.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>Similar to my situation. May sell my Nikon 9000 too as I suspect the market for these will be declining soon. Digital is way better imho. My now sold Olympus E-30 at low iso and 12 megapixels definitely held its own with my 645 stuff (very big prints with 645 are better but that is via the drum scan/light jet route and its very expensive). Yes, 645 is still good with fine grained film if you are willing to take the steps necessary to achieve good results. Inkjet printing is inferior to lightjet/chromira printing at large sizes.<br>

6x7 is becoming marginalized very quickly though I still use it for long exposure work at night because i prefer the look of Kodak Portra scanned to digital. For all other types of photography, I imagine a d600 would probably surpass 6x7 and a D800 would thoroughly trounce it with the right glass ($$$$)</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

Malcolm, using MF film is not just bout resolution. The lenses on the system will have a different look and rendering to

them. And the digital, regardless of rez, will not loom like film. Saying that digital is better than film is like saying oil

painting is better than watercolour. The statement doesn't make any sense.