Stepping up to MF (Mamiya 7II) from 35mm -- will it be worth every penny?

[darrin_podeschi]

I currently use a Nikon N70 and an Olympus IS-3. Although the IS-3

is more like a point and shoot, I have found I have taken some of my

best pictures with it because of convenience (it has a 35-180 lens w/

decent glass). I am mainly shooting Provia 100f and Ilford B&W. 70%

of my time is spent on landscapes and the rest on people/portraits.

I am using a Bogen tripod and B&W filters (polarizer, red, etc.)

 

I have seen the quality of prints from large and medium format and

want that crispness in my enlargements. So, after reading hundreds

of posts on photo.net (what a great resource!!), I am ready to

purchase the Mamiya 7II w/ an 80mm lens (and then buy the 50mm at

some point). I live in Northern California so being able to

hike/bike w/ my equipment is a plus.

 

So, my question is, for those individuals who shot a lot of 35mm and

then moved up to MF rangefinder like M7, looking back was it worth

it? Do you find yourself shooting primarily MF, or do you go back to

35mm as your primary format? Anything I should know before I make

the leap? Sorry for the general nature of the question, but I'm

looking for counsel from people who have "been there done that."

 

Thanks.

[Troll]

35mm Reigns. All else is added weight, bulk, and expense, unless you always print 16x20 or bigger.

[alan_krantz]

Rent one first. Don't know how much it cost where you are but around here it was $35 for the weekend....

[robert_c_harvey]

Darrin, Medium format, with all it's extra weight, is well worth it! A rangefinder is smaller and more compact than a slr, the Mamiya 7 is well regarded.

Robert

[jeremy_keller]

Dear Darrin,

 

I shoot 35mm and 6x6 (the former with a Leica M3, the latter with a '50s Minolta Autocord TLR. For B&W enlargements over 11 x 14, the larger format wins by a large margin almost all the time.

 

My only cavil is with your choice of medium format weapon. The M7 will set you back thousands of dollars and will not survive an accidental trip off your bike or out of your backpack. A Minolta, Yashica, or Rollei will give you the same lens quality, save you enough for your next carbon fiber bike frame, take up half the space in your pack, and the Minolta, at least, will survive any attempts to destroy it.

 

Happy shooting,

 

Jeremy Keller

[wim_van_velzen]

Renting for a weekend is probably a bit short to get an idea if MF is for you. Buy a simple TLR (e.g Yashica), use it for some months and if you are feeling the prints (or even better projected trannies) have a plus over your 35mm work, go for the system you really like to have (for me it is the Bronica EC; no rangefinders as I like tele).

 

RE Bill: I like MFprints over 35mm for everything above 5'x7', though I still use my 35mm for a lot of family snaps and the less formal parts of my wedding photography. But every landscape in 35mm makes me angry with myself: 'o lazy one, thou should have taken thy MF!'

[duncan_ross1]

Jeremy,

 

Regarding your comment:

 

"My only cavil is with your choice of medium format weapon. The M7 will set you back thousands of dollars and will not survive an accidental trip off your bike or out of your backpack. A Minolta, Yashica, or Rollei will give you the same lens quality, "

 

The Mamiya 7 has some of the sharpest optics available on any MF system, particularly th 80, 65, 50 and 43. These are highly rated by photodo as well (better than SLR lenses like Zeiss). While I agree that the Minolta, Rollei and Yashica produce great results (particularly if the comparison is handheld 8x10 or 11x14 prints), there is no comparison in lens sharpness.

 

As for price, Mamiya sells for 50% of USA prices in many places outside of the USA.

 

Duncan

[safari]

I am primarily a landscape photographer. I used Nikon 35mm's for many years and loved them but I could never seem to get the image quality that I wanted for my landscapes.

 

I finally decided to purchase a Pentax 67II MF camera. The difference in image quality in tremendous! Landscapes taken with my 55mm and 75mm lenses as well as Velvia film (ISO set at 40) look fantastic! The images are very sharp. The colors and contrast are excellent. I finally have the image quality that I have always wanted.

 

As a result, I sold all of my Nikon 35mm gear. The Pentax 67 handles like a large 35mm. My old Nikon with a motor drive attached weighed nearly as much. I have always carried a heavy tripod so the additional weight of three or four Pentax lenses does not bother me.

 

For me, the only reason I would go back to 35mm would be for wildlife, sporting events and other fast moving subjects that would benefit from a quicker handling camera. Otherwise, 6x7 is my format of choice.

 

Mark Goodell

[david_goldfarb]

The main issue regarding the M7 will likely be whether or not you like using a rangefinder. The lenses are excellent.

 

I shoot 35, 6x6, and 8x10", and each has its place.

[john_hicks___]

In terms of potential image quality, just about any MF camera offers _far_ better than the best of 35mm...and holds many pitfalls. 645 image quality can be much better than 35mm; the improvement of 6x7 over 645 can be difficult to see.

 

MF cameras, lenses etc are usually bigger, heavier, more expensive, and the lenses are slower. Of particular note is that generally MF camera systems are more niche-oriented than do-it-all 35mm systems.

 

Taking the Mamiya 7, for example, it's great for normal-lens and wideangle usage, but if your idea of a good portrait shot is a tight headshot that can't be done. The 150 lens doesn't focus closely enough, plus the viewfinder frame for that lens is rather small. This is the situation with all MF RF cameras, the Mamiya 6 and 7, the Bronica 645 RF, the Fuji assortment.

 

Only you can decide how important close focusing, especially with the long lens, is to you.

 

Also, there are no zoom lenses. One of the Fujis has a pseudo-zoom but its range is so short it should be considered just a "variable-normal."

 

Lens speed....if using MF forces you to use a faster film to get a sufficient shutter speed because the lens is slower than one for a 35mm camera you'll be losing some of the quality advantages. While f1.4 normal lenses for 35mm cameras are common and cheap, the fastest lenses for MF cameras are f2 and are huge and extremely expensive. Much more common are f2.8 to f4 lenses.

 

How important is that to you?

 

Size and weight...well, of course MF is usually bigger and heavier. In the same bag space that holds an M7 and three lenses you can fit a Leica and at least six lenses, or two Leicas and at least four lenses etc.

 

My personal opinion? I'll always use the bigger cameras as long as size/weight/speed considerations don't override that choice.

[daniel_bacon]

It's nice to see someone else enjoys the IS-3! I moved up to Pentax 67II a year ago and enjoy it quality over the 35mm format. I still take the majority 60 to 70% of my pictures with the IS-3. It is my go anywhere camera. However, I sometime return to the same spot with the 67II and the majority of the keepers are from the 6x7 format. Nevertheless, if you are like me I keep the IS-3 literally everywhere just because it is easy to carry and if I break it is not as much as a loss as the Pentax 67II and 4 lens are. Take the suggestion, rent one for a week or even a weekend, and see how you like it.

[andreas_carl]

For sports, action, people etc., 35 mm may be better, but if your interest is landscapes, there is a huge difference between 35mm and MF. It's easy to see, even on an 8x10 print. I am a Hasselblad fan, but the Mamiyas are fine cameras too, and so are the Fuji Rangefinders. And yes, I also carry a little Olympus point&shoot for the more spontaneous shots, or when I want to travel really light and all I want is some snap shots or memories. I don't use 35mm SLRs anymore and sold them long ago. When I want serious pictures, it's a job for my Hasselblad.

 

There is one other thing you might want to ponder: if landscapes is what you are really interested in, if you are a "naturally slow, careful and complative" worker, always using a tripod for your compositions, you probably should consider large format. If you don't want to get into the hassle of sheet film, you could buy a dedicated 6x9 or you could buy a 4x5 with roll film holder. LF equipment is actually less expensive than MF!

[robert_kennedy]

I'd suggest something like maybe a Bronica ETR with a Speedgrip and an AE prism. The handling is decent, the prices for used equipment are very good, quality is high and you can swap out backs and prisms.

[christoph-erdmann pfeiler]

The Mamiya has interchangeable lenses. That's a real advantage, if You want to store it for biking. You can get small hard cases, well cushioned, for every part, which can be stored very conveniently at nearly every place.

[tim_klein1]

I'm a little confused by your comment about getting better pictures due to the "convenience". I'm a big fan of the M7II, but compared to point and shoot and zoom lenses, it can't be considered convenient.

 

Will it be worth every penny? Well, medium format is much superior to 35mm for landscape work in my opinion, even at print sizes of 8x10. My little Yashica TLR (picked up at a garage sale for about 50 bucks) easily surpasses most prime 35mm lenses and generally blows away zoom lenses though, and it's images are only slightly less impressive than those from my M7. I'd rate the difference between the Yashica and 35mm far greater than the difference between the Yashica and the M7. So, 50 bucks versus $2000.00? I can't really say it's worth every penny!

 

That doesn't mean I don't highly recommend the M7 though. It's a great camera (assuming you don't mind manual rangefinder focusing, manual film advance, a changing appararent metering area, and limited lens selection!). I use the M7 almost exclusively, with the exact lenses you mentioned, and couldn't be happier with the results. I'd love to see a lens in the lineup that focuses a little closer, but it doesn't sound like it's possible with the current M7II design. I don't consider it much of a problem though because the portraiture I do is generally environmental anyway, and the few head and shoulders shots I need are easily available through cropping of the huge 6x7 image area.

 

Aside from a point and shoot Ricoh, I don't shoot 35mm at all any more (unless it's in the Mamiya, in panoramic format). 6x7 is simply that much superior to 35mm in the work I do. If you have the money, you can't go wrong with the Mamiya (I do suggest you spend a day or two with one before laying out the cash though). If you're really concerned about "every penny", I'd still make the move to medium format but look around for a more reasonably priced way of doing it.

[les_campbell]

Here's my 2 bits, echoing and expanding on some of the previous posts.

 

The M7II is a great camera, with great lenses. It's relatively light, but yes, it's impossible to do a tight headshot (chest and head are about as close as you can get). If you like to do larger prints (11x14 or bigger), then the quality becomes much more noticeable. You should definitely try renting one first, though. You mention how you like the convenience of the IS-3 -- it's going to take you longer to frame and compose properly, IMHO, in medium format, and especially with a rangefinder (since you're used to SLRs).

 

Then there's the question of what you're going to do with your shots. If a lab will be making all your prints, it will be somewhat more expensive (much more if you haven't used a pro lab before this). Your B&W stuff you can easily process and enlarge yourself; I'm less sanguine about doing E-6 at home, but that's just me. As for your Provia 100F shots -- what are you going to do with those? If you want to project them as slides, a 6x7 projector is going to cost a bundle. If you want to scan them yourself to print on an inkjet, a good MF scanner is going to cost you a bundle. If you're going to have Ilfochromes or similiar made, also a bundle.

 

Finally, if you're going to buy a Mamiya 7, DON'T buy it in the USA. Mamiya of America Corp. (the official USA importer) marks up the gear outrageously. I (and many other photo.netters) bought my M7 stuff through Robert White in the UK (search the archives) -- he's very reputable and reliable, the prices are about 55 percent of those in the US, and duty is only about 6 percent. Shipping was very fast, and only about $50, as I recall. They even have some used equipment from time to time, with the prices proportionally cheaper.

 

If you're a fan of the grab shot -- and it kind of sounds like you are -- MF may not be for you. I still shoot both my 35mm stuff and medium format, depending on my mood, objective, how much weight I want to carry, etc. (my M7 kit -- camera and 3 lenses -- is actually lighter than my standard 35mmm kit, since with that I carry three 2.8 zooms). Like everything else in photography, the decision has to be made according to your personal taste. Sharpness is not the ultimate objective in photography, IMHO, but a lot of us seem to get caught up in thinking it is. Rent, then decide.

[lloyd_chambers]

I have a Nikon F100 with an extensive set of lenses, as well as a Mamiya 7 II with 43, 80 and 150mm lenses (I also have a 4 X 5 and 617)

 

The Mamiya lenses are absolutely outstanding (perhaps the best available in medium format) and I think they are as sharp as my 35mm lenses with extremely high contrast too. You will not be disappointed.

 

My major gripe with the 7 II is that because it is not a TLR, it is very difficult to use graduated neutral density filters, which I use heavily with my 35mm equipment. This makes high contrast sunrise/sunset shots next to impossible with it.

 

One other important point: as a rangefinder, it is quite possible to shoot at much lower shutter speeds than with 35mm, since there is no mirror slap.

 

Size/weight are astonishingly low for 6 X 7, and in fact better than some pro SLRs, like the Nikon F5 or D1.

[vijay_nebhrajani]

Many years ago, I started out into photography with my father's battered Voigtlander Bessa II that produced 6x9 negatives. I used to blow up my shots to 8x12 (yes, you could do that in India in 1985).

 

Then I moved to 35mm primarily because 120 processing and film got rarer and more expensive, and I discovered the things I could do with an SLR. But 8x12 prints (or sometimes 8.5x11) stank. This was 1990. Too much grain when I did not want it, sharpness was sub-par... I longed for the look of the pictures made with the Bessa. In frustration, I gave up 35mm prints and B&W - and shot only Kodachrome for a long time.

 

Finally when I could afford it I jumped back into MF, but this time with 6x6. Hopfully two decades of film technology improvement will get me back to where I left off in 1985 (with 6x6 instead of 6x9).

 

Today I can see grain in a 4x6 print made from 35mm Agfa XPS 160 (RMS granularity 3.5). That is OK if I want it to be so, but if I don't, it bothers me. For me, 35mm has always been a "convenience" format...

 

Regards.

[alan_hogg]

I started landscape photography with Canon EOS gear (24 & 85 prime lenses) plus tripod, using Fuji Velvia. I was never satisfied with my 10X8 ilfochrome prints - too little detail in foliage etc.

 

I now use a Mamiya 7II with 65 & 150mm lenses and the difference in sharpness is an order of magnitude. My best prints are 16X20 ilfochromes and they are very impressive. I am still using Velvia.

 

I also concur with others that Robert White in the UK, or numerous dealers in Hong Kong are the way to go for purchasing.

 

Alan Hogg

[wayne_crider3]

When I hit the local fairs and generally walk around, my 35's are the camera of carry. For macro and micro it's 35's again. When I shoot portraits it's usually with my old 6x6 Rollei, unless I'm shooting TCN which is in my 35 for headshots to 8x10. For landscapes it's usually my 35 and 6x9 Graphic; For supreme quality it's my 4x5. They all cost way less than a current new MF camera. In fact they all cost way less than one new lens from a current MF camera. Believe me, it's not worth the expense unless you want the toy. They're are other ways of getting quality enlargements without spending the big bucks. Buy a cheaper camera and go to on a trip to Europe or your favorite destination instead.

[david_henderson]

Your question hides two issues. First, is it worth changing to MF? Second is a rangefinder the way to go if you do?

 

I'm a landscape/urban landscape photographer. I changed from 35mm to Medium Format about five years ago, and there is no comparison, satisfaction wise. I think I've used my Canons once in five years. It's a combination of bigger image; bigger apparent viewfinder making it easier to compose; and a different aspect ratio - I always found the angular shape of 35mm inelegant and difficult to compose within. Whilst accepting that the apparent resolution of modern 35mm lenses is greater than MF, the difference in quality created by the bigger film size is clearly visible at 11x14 and absolutely critical in larger prints. The experience of projecting a big tranny just can't be matched by anything that 35mm can do. The bigger camera promotes a more studied, contemplative approach to landscapes that could transform your photography. If you yearn after these qualities then MF is the way to go.

 

Now, the rangefinder issue. I have a Mamiya 7 and a Bronica system. I think they are both fine cameras. The Mamiya has really great lenses, gives me the ability to handhold down to 1/15; produces great square and panoramic images through cropping, and is easy to carry. But there are some drawbacks that aren't unique to the M7, but are common to rangefinders, and these convince me that a medium format SLR is more flexible in many respects than the M7. First you can't see depth of field with a rangefinder. Second the focus mechanism isn't easy to use for everyone, especially with longer lenses. Third the metering cell is independent of the lens used and covers the same angle of view whether you're using a wide angle or a telephoto. Thus the effective metering pattern is different between lenses and despite what others might tell you this makes it more complex to really get to know how your meter behaves-especially if you're used to a sophisticated matrix meter . Fourth you can't frame really accurately with a rangefinder- you generally get a lot more than the brightline frame indicates. Then it's much more difficult to use ND grads (and I find these essential for quality landscape work) and a little more fiddly to use a polariser because you can't see the effect through the lens. You don't have an interchangeable back capability, so you can't switch from Provia to B&W shot by shot. You can't get a full frame head and shoulders shot because rangefinder lenses don't focus close enough.

 

Now the purpose of running through all this is not to put you off the M7 - as I say it's a great camera and some of my best work is produced on it. It's just that rangefinders aren't as flexible as SLR's and this is why I spent last weekend hauling a Bronica, four lenses, a teleconverter, two backs, a meter, film and filters around Budapest fourteen hours a day when I had a Mamiya a quarter the weight back at my hotel. To me the M7 is great at what it does well but isn't good enough on a wide enough range of things to be the camera I carry all the time. It's a great second camera for someone like me - on the other hand if I did the sort of work Jeff Spirer produces (run a search) it might be my first choice.

[douglas_j._moo1]

Previous responders have made many points with which I agree. I added the M7II about a year ago to my Canon EOS outfit. Great camera, sharp lenses, ability to crop because of larger size, significantly better quality in enlargements, and impressive projected slides. And Robert White is the place to buy it But let me make three other points from my experience. 1) If you shop around (as I did) you can find a Cabin 6x7 projector for around $500. Projecting those 6x7 slides is a wonderful experience. But 2) cost and difficulty increases significantly. The projector requires you to mount the slides in glass mounts at about $1.00 each. And you have to manually insert the slides. A lot more work if you are used to sitting with a remote control and zipping through a carousel of 35mm. slides. Worth it, in my opinion -- but be prepared. 3) I find that the M7II is great for some things but not for many other situations I face (e.g., macro, telephoto, animal shots, tight portraits). So in most situations, when I am hiking, I find I need to take both the M7 and the Canon systems. Now this is (just) doable with a lightweight camera such as the M7. But try it with a MF SLR!! No way! So while the MF SLR gives undeniable advantages re. filters, exact composition, etc., its weight is enough for me to exclude it. You at least need to factor this into your decision.

[darrin_podeschi]

Wow. I am so grateful for the incredibly thoughtful responses from everyone. I've read each response, and have re-read a number of them. I've used the Internet for a number of years quite extensively and must say the best moment for me so far was to receive such rapid and helpful responses from everyone. Thanks again, and I'll make sure to post a note when I decide which route to go. I have decided one thing, though, I will purchase a MF camera, especially for landscapes, and will continue to use my 35mm for pictures of my wife, daughters and other people shots on the go. I'll continue to look for more responses, too.

 

By the way, I've been using a light box and loupe versus a projector to view my slides. I've had my slides processed at A&I, and then send select ones back for 8x10 or 11x14 enlargements, and have been very pleased. After the MF purchase, I plan on investing in a dark room so I can save some money on B&W processing and enlargements.

Regards, Darrin

[fwstutterheim]

Darrin, I read you mainly use Provia 100F. Are you planning to project the slides? The cost of a 6*7 slide projector is outrageous.

[msitaraman]

Ferdi,

 

Mamiya 6x7 projectors go for around US400 in Japan-they cost a multiple of that in the US. Don't know about elsewhere.