Mamiya or Pentax 67 for Landscape Use

[mark_jacobs1]

I have been going back and forth in my mind about getting a Mamiya 67

(most likely RB series) or Pentax 67. It will be used 98% of the time

for landscape photography. I would be taking the camera and tripod on

short hiking trails (1-3 miles). I would probably start off with a

lens around 55mm.

 

I have used medium format (645) in the past so I know some of what is

involved such as working a lot slower and heavier loads. I'll

probably start with a WL finder and a handheld spot meter and

consider a metered prism later on if I found I would rather use that.

 

So anyone have any thoughts choosing between these systems? I'm

guessing that the Pentax is more ruged... but have nothing to base

that on other than the look of the cameras. My main concern with the

Pentax is shutter bounce even with the mirror locked up. I would

think the Mamiya would be a better choice in this regard with the

leaf shutter lenses....again I've never used leaf shutter lenses so I

can't base that on experience.

 

Help?

[peter_weimann1]

Hi Mark, I would go for the Pentax for the following reasons: It is not as heavy as the Mamiya, lenses are much cheaper and of the same or even higher quality. It is faster to use in the field and probably more rugged. The mirror bounce problem is indeed a problem, but only when you use the camera on a long lens which hat its own tripod collar, like the 4/400 ED which I had. With such a combination you have only the 250th and shorter shutter speeds. Every photo taken with a longer speed is blurry and there is nothing to prevent that. With the camera mounted on the tripod there is no problem, so every lens from 45 to 300mm will be fine to use.

Hope this helps.

Greetings

Peter

[severi_salminen]

Hi Mark!

 

There is a decent review of Pentax 67ii at Luminous Landscape.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml

 

I chose Mamiya RB 67 Pro-S because of the revolving back, and the advantages of leaf shutter over focal plane. Of course, both types have their advantages. Mamiya also has better close-up potential, because of the bellows. Both cameras, I believe, are very good choises and have their advantages and disadvantages. You can't go wrong with them.

[trooper]

I'll echo Peter's comments as the Pentax is the more suitable field camera. I have had a P67 system for some time and find myself using my little Bronica RF645 and Fuji RF's more and leaving the bulky P67 stuff at home when trekking as you describe. In fact, I've been realizing (after looking at what I use the P67 for), that 90% could have been better handled with a Mamiya 7.

 

Part of my dread of dragging the Pentax gear around concerns the heavier support that it requires. I own a number of pods and the lightest that I trust for P67 duty is about 8.5 pounds (a 1320 w/#3 head and I'm paranoid about that after a couple of incidents at certain lens and shutter speed combo quirks). A well designed pod of half that weight can function with the RF's. I currently use an old Bogen 3011 and 3025 head that I have come to trust for light duty and know that there are lighter rigs that would duplicate its performance but it's light enough and I already own it. The 3 pound difference is more profound in practice than on paper and is a significant factor when added to the decision for field use.

 

I've realized I could just as well have a true field camera with me if I'm going to haul a load around. A roll film back would be a decent option while I'm transitioning my darkroom to LF equipment (a 23CII has served me well for many years and limits me to 6X9). Only you know what's really right for what you intend and I've made the same decision that you seem headed toward..... I'm just adding my rambling thoughts from the experiences I've had from making the decision. Everything is a trade-off of some function or trait when gearing up in MF so you will ultimately need to reach a conclusion based on what you feel is the best combination of compromises.

[fxdonny]

For 98% time devoted to landscape, I would seriously look into Mamiya 7, mainly due to lighter weight (no prism or mirror) and easier handling.

 

Just a thought..

[mark_jacobs1]

I've considered the Mamiaya 7 rangefinder but I think I would be really frustrated when it came time to put a split ND or polarizer in front of the lens. I'm sure there are tricks to this to minimize error, but I'm sure it's not as easy as seeing the results first hand through the lens.

 

After going through the luminous landscape review I can see that the bulky tripod is something that I didn't really add into the equation yet! No pain, sore muscles, aching back, no gain...right?

[jay_.]

Mark, you are right about the ND grads. I use a Leica rangfinder for landscape work when backpacking and I've devised an ingenious system to use grads on it accurately, which would be viable with a Mamiya 7 as well, but it's still a PITA.

 

I formerly used a Pentax 67 for landscape work and was quite unhappy with it. The main reason was that it doesn't have separate film backs. I remember shooting in Bryce and Zion parks, racing the rising sun as the colors and textures changed, and losing lots of great shots while changing film. Next time I went, I took 2 bodies, but that was a "weighty" decision.

 

After selling the P67 my next brilliant idea was a Horseman VH-R, a baby tech-field camera with both a (revolving)GG back and a (revolving) viewfinder and coupled rangefinder, that took 6x7 or 6x9 rollfilm backs. Weight, size and feature-wise (all the movements of a view camera)it was perfect for the task, and the lenses (made by Toyo Kogaku, who used to make the excellent Topcon 35mm SLRs)were great. I had 65, 105 and 180mm, roughly equivalent on my 6x7 backs to 32-52-90mm in 35mm format. The downside was there wasn't enough bellows draw to fit a wider lens, and the rollfilm backs had flatness issues. So I sold that too.

 

Finally I took a cue from Ansel Adams' final years and got myself a Hasselblad, and that's where I've been ever since. Light weight, unbelievably good lenses, no vibration with MLU, no need to change camera position for vertical/horizontal shots, and the least troublesome backs for film flatness of any I've tried. And at today's prices, IMO there's just no reason to go with anything else.

[david b]

I considered this same choice some time ago, and decided that if I was carrying the weight of either kit around, I might as well go for 5x4 LF, with all the benefits of tilt/shift control etc as well as the larger transparency. There are also no mirror vibration issues.

I retrospect, for myself, I made the right decision and love 5x4.

 

If I had to go for either the Pentax or Mamiya, then I'd go for the Pentax. If I had a free choice restricted though to MF, then I'd have either the M7 or a Fuji rangefinder

Best of luck!

[guytal]

Neither system is very nimble, but I would also vote for the Pentax. The lenses are fantastic and it isa bit lighter. Still, like David, I would urge you to consider a 4x5 system as well - it will provide a world of focus and perspective control options that the 67 systems don't have. It may even end up being lighter and easier to carry. At these sizes DOF becomes a severe limitation that movements can mitigate to a large extent.<br>

I used a Pentax 67 for about 2 years before making the switch and never looked back. For slow and deliberate landscape work, a 4x5 is a far better tool, in my opinion.

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://www.scenicwild.com">http://www.scenicwild.com</a>

[joey]

I'll throw in a vote for the RB67. It's just more convenient to use, and its weight with a waistlevel finder is about equal to a P67 with a prism. Here are some of the advantages of the RB:

 

-Better close-up opportunities

-Intechangeable backs, including polaroids

-Rotating back--no flipping the camera

-Leaf shutter, which allows faster flash sync; also, if one of the shutters dies, you can still use your other lenses

-Many good lenses going dirt cheap on the used market

 

The main benefit of the Pentax is that it is closer to a 35mm design, so it might be more familiar to a MF newbie. However, since you say you're already into medium format, this shouldn't be a problem. The Pentax may be more rugged as well, although I've taken my RB on extended hiking trips and it's never failed (there's a great article on that here: http://www.photo-mark.com/articles/backpacking/).

 

Both cameras are capable of great results... it really comes down to which one you are more comfortable with. The gear, especially in medium format, doesn't matter than much, as nearly every camera can create some outstanding images. Good luck!

[mark houtzager]

Just to note that I have both a P 67 and a Mamiya 7 set. I find myself taking handheld

shots with the M7 rather than hauling the P67. Because the mirror needs to be locked

up, you'll always find yourself carrying a fairly heavy tripod.

 

 

My M7 plus 3 lenses fit comfortably in a hiphugger, I use the P67 for the occasional

macro image. Would be happy to sell my set (P 67 (# 4184xxx) / all rings / 75 / 105

/ 165 / grip / WL finder) to you.

 

 

Mark

[mark_jacobs1]

I guess the only answer to my question would be to get my hands on both cameras. I just keep reading report after report of shutter vibration issues on the Pentax 67 with longer shutter speeds which I tend to use more often than not. I've read messages from people saying they have to lean on their prism, put sandbags on the camera!, bungee cords on their tripods and all kinds of other things to get around shutter vibration problems. I'm thinking a solid tripod and mirror lockup on the RB67 would be a lot easier! It's rare that I go over 1/400 shutter speed limitation on the lenses anyway... I'm usually on the other side of the dial.

 

4x5 is extremely tempting but I'll have to look more into the cost of film and development around here (Raleigh, NC). I have a feeling a 4x5 is going to be a pretty expensive camera to use in that regard.

[severi_salminen]

One thing to keep in mind is that 1/30s x-sync not only limits the flash usage, but also means that every exposure allways takes at least 1/30 sec to finish - even at 1/1000. It takes 1/30s for one curtain to travel over the film port. I guess this might cause some distortions in the image in some situations - if there is movement in the scene.

 

This might be a problem or not. I have, however, never witnessed this as I have never used P67 or other camera with such a slow x-sync. Others might know better.

[desmond_kidman]

I had a full Hass system, as well as 4x5's. I wanted to have a 6 x 7 system. Money was not an issue. Quality and flexibility were the issues. I ended up with the RZ67 and it fills all of the requirements.

 

My biggest problem with the Pentax is indeed the shutter shake. This is a sever limitation, even on tripod, and can limit your choice of aperture if you wish to use the faster shutter speeds.

 

Also, once you have interchangeable backs you never want to go back. Black and white, color print, transparency........all immediately available, mid roll.

 

Finally, if you ever shoot verticals it can be a pain going back and forth. The rotating back is a large plus.

 

Oh yes......who said the Pentax lenses are as good or better? Better do a comparison of the latest Pentax and RZ lenses. You may change your mind.

[andrew_ito]

I wouldn't rule out 4x5 just yet. If you get a good Horseman rollfilm back you can

shoot 6x7, 6x9 or 6x12 panoramic with full movements. You also have the option to

shoot 4x5 if you want. Landscape work just seems to be done best IMO with a view

camera. Near far relationships can be easily done with a little tilt.

 

I shoot with a 2x3 view camera and love it. Although there are times where I miss the

big 4x5 tranny, 6x9 allows me to still print fairly large. You also don't have to deal

with the costs involved in 4x5 in regards to film/processing. Also, no loading sheet

film all the time! Carrying around rolls of 120 film is a breeze. You get 10-6x7 and

8-6x9 shots per roll. You also benefit from having a large selection of view camera

lenses. With 6x7 or 6x9 formats you need less coverage and also use the sharpest

center portion of the lens unless you're using some heavy movements. For my

landscape shooting I just love the 2x3 format. I've also used Fuji GA645zi, Mamiya 7,

Pentax 67, Rollei SL66 and Hasselblad systems and have found the view camera gives

me the best results. Good luck on your search!

 

Andy

[chris_brown11]

Mark,

 

I'll second F D about the Mamiya 7 or 7II. For hiking and landscape purposes, its pretty nice. I have packed into some rough places with an RB though and love it, but I do alot of closeup work as well.

 

Another thing to think about is lens choice. Normal lenses, like a 127mm lens on a 6x7 camera give some fantastic landscapes. I have made the terrible mistake (once) of taking only wide lenses for landscapes to save on weight, don't make that same mistake.

[b_kosoff]

I've been trying different camera systems for landscape work for a few years

now. I started off with a large Rolleiflex 6008i system. The lenses, schneiders,

were fantastic, better than what i had been used to with Hasselblad. However

I noticed that i ended up cropping all of my images into skinny horizontals, a

2:1 aspect ratio. The Rollei system was also fairly heavy. As I fly to most of my

locations, I always have concerns with being able to carry on everthing I need

to shoot. Two Rollei's, 4 mags and 7 lenses were flyable. Still the system was

not "it".

 

So i decided next to use a field camera, a Canham DLC and 6x12 roll film

backs, Sinar Zoom. This worked fairly well except for the slowness of set up in

rapidly changing light, and the fact that the Zoom backs tended to droop the

film standard slightly out of focus. the zoom backs also require quite a bit of

concentration to use without error, and in fast and rough conditions it can be

tricky.

 

Next was a Mamiya 7II system. It was fast, very light weight and extremely

portable. The lenses are superb. I still use it today when I go on trips where

photography is not the main purpose. The only draw backs were the 6x7

versus 6x12 size, and the major gap on the lens line. There is no lens

between 80mm and 150mm, and the longest lens is the 210mm.

 

Currently I use a Fuji 680GXIII which is a monster. It is the heaviest set up I

own and it limits the distance in which i can hike. It also forces me to put all of

my trust in carrying just one camera body on location, something I am loathe

to do. I managed to save weight by using my view camera lenses for lengths

180mm and over. I take 8 lenses, from 65mm to 400mm and 3 magazines

with me. I am able to carry all of this on a plane, with a back pack and a

shoulder bag. When i can work out of my car this monster works great. If the

hike is more than a mile i end up spending the night soaking in a hot tub, as

the backpack, shoulder bag and tripod combo weighs in at over 80 pounds. I

own several carbon fiber tripods, but as I do very long exposures i have

learned that weight can be a virtue too. To make matters worse i alway bring

empty sand bags with me, and fill them when I arrive at my destination.

Sometimes I hike with them as well. A quarter mile hike with those added to

the mass i'm carrying makes me wonder about my cholesterol.

 

So far no one system has been IT for me. I am hoping that Mamiya or Fuji

will make a 6x9 rangfinder camera with interchangeable lenses, that is also

cheap enough for me to buy 3 bodies of, one for each film i shoot. Who knows

maybe one day.

[george_rhodes]

I use the Pentax 67 (last model prior to the current electronic 67II) to shoot my 24" X 30" landscapes. By using the proper techniques, I have absolutely no problem with mirror or shutter induced vibration. I have found the optics, including my 90-180mm zoom, to be superb, producing razor sharp 30" prints. Pentax has the largest number of lens offerings of any 6X7 system, including a 75mm shift lens, 55-100mm and 90-180mm zooms and telephotos up to 800mm. Except for a few of the newer lenses, such as the relatively new zooms, both camera bodies and lenses can be found used on ebay for incredibly reasonable prices. In the field, I generally carry a tripod, 67 body, 45mm, 75mm and 90-180m lenses, neutral density filters and a polarizer. It isn't what I'd call a lightweight system, but compared to what many others carry into the field, it isn't all that heavy either. Pentax 67 bodies and lenses are built tough. In five years of use, no piece of my Pentax equipment (most of it bought used in mint condition) has ever let me down.

[frank_oddsocks]

George wrote:<i>By using the proper techniques, I have absolutely no problem with mirror or shutter induced vibration.</i>

<p>

I second this. You need to be careful about "received wisdom" on

the net. It could be one person's experience with a dodgy body

amplified by 1000 people reposting that person's experience as

their own.

<p>

My Pentax 67 lenses are sharp, but I'm not rapt in their bokeh. A

lot of people like everything sharp for landscape,

so don't care about the bokeh.

Also, the prism doesn't give you a 100% view.

<p>

Sorry, I have no

experience with the Mamiya 7.