chris_patti

My advice is to take the opinions of others on such matters with a huge grain of salt. Choices among camera systems (and lenses) are very personal and subjective. Since you are going to be spending a lot of money, whichever way you decide to go, if at all possible you should rent both systems (even if just for a day). Take lots of chromes of the same scene with comparable lenses on both cameras, get a feel for the systems' respective handling characteristics, and examine the chromes under a good loupe. After that, you are in a much better position than anyone else to decide what's best for you. Frankly, I'd be surprised if a difference in lens quality ends up the deciding factor.

According to the angle calculator on photo.net, the horizontal angle using the 50mm lens is about 58.5 degrees, vertical angle for 24mm, about 27 degrees. I've never really understood the practical value of the 35mm panoramic adapter for the Mamiya 6. If you're going to do a lot of panoramic photography, it seems you would want to buy a true panoramic camera. If you're doing panoramic photography only occasionally, just crop the 6x6 neg.

 

<p>

 

None of the lenses for this camera focus as closely as you would want, but, as the Mamiya people explain it on their web site forum, this is an inherent trade off in a medium format rangefinder with the compact size of the camera. The good news is, because of the larger film size, you can crop down to a pretty tight shot and still have a 35mm-sized negative.

 

<p>

 

Despite all of its inherent limitations, for my type of photography, the Mamiya 6 is the best travel/backpacking camera I know of.

Does anyone know whether 120 is available in Kathmandu? I'll be trekking in Nepal and plan to bring all the film I think I will need. The question is whether I should bring twice what I think I'll need or rely on local availability for "back up." I plan to shoot mostly B&W, but some color slide as well. Thanks for any information.

Since purchasing a Mamiya 6 system, I find I use my Pentax 67 less and less. I've been thinking of trading it in for a MF system with movements to get some additional functionality. (I'm not interested in going to 4x5.) I'll be using it for landscape and building photography. I want something that can use a fairly wide lens (equal to my 45mm on the Pentax system)and that is reasonably portable (although I won't be backpacking with it--that's what the Mamiya 6 is for). I also don't want to spend more than I can get for the Pentax system (est. $2500). After considering a number of options (e.g. Horseman VH), here's my latest idea: a Calumet Cadet 4x5 wide angle camera with a 6x7 roll film back (or Calumet roll film holder). This is a monorail camera with fixed bag bellows that sells for about $450. The Calumet catalog says its "usable" range of lenses is 47mm to 150mm. I'd think about getting a 47mm Super Angulon (or 45mm Rodenstock Grandagon) and a 100mm for it.

 

<p>

 

Does anyone have any thoughts/reactions? Any ideas about competing options?

Check out http://www.photo.net/photo/lens-table.html which gives comparable lens lengths for various formats and print aspect ratios.

First, two truisms: (1) the suitability of any camera will depend on your intended use; and (2) all camera systems have their inherent limitations. If you want to do macro or tight portrait work, or need really long, wide or superfast lenses, the Mamiya 6 is not for you. But within its limitations, it's a great camera. It is incredibly compact and portable, in part because of the collapsable lens housing. The Mamiya 6, all lenses, some accessories and film will fit easily into a little Lowe Pro Photo Runner fanny pack. Try that with any other exchangeable lens MF system. It ergonomics and "handle-ability" are great. It is very quiet, and, for a MF camera, unobtrusive. The quality of all three lenses is stunning--I find that, with fine-grained film (e.g., TMX) the larger negative area of my Pentax 67 is cancelled out by the greater sharpness of the Mamiya lenses. Because it is light and a rangefinder (and therefore less prone to vibration than a SLR) you can get away with a much smaller (and lighter) tripod than with other MF cameras. All of this combines to make the Mamiya 6 an almost ideal travel/backpacking camera. But it is also so much fun to use, I'm seldom picking up any of my other MF or 35mm cameras these days. If the inherent limitations of this camera fit with your type of shooting, it's a great choice.

 

<p>

 

Finally, a note on the Mamiya 6 vs. the Mamiya 7. As compared to the 7, the 6 is (1) a lot cheaper (especially used), (2) significantly more compact and portable, (3) lacking that really great (and expensive) 43 mm lens, (4) discontinued. For my uses (and budget) the 6 is better, but the 7 is pretty great too.

May be heresy to say it on this forum, but P67 is probably not your best choice for this. You may want to go to a 645 camera which will have a vertical format.

There is a good description of the various Yashica TLRs at http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~jalbro/impact/yashica66.guide.html. It appears that, in addition to lacking the meter in the 124G, the D has a different lens.

About six months or a year ago there was some buzz on the internet that there might be a new P67 in the works. Pentax had let it be known that there would be a new MF camera, and I would not be surprised if this was idle speculation based on that information. Of course, we now know that the new camera was the autofocus 645. So, maybe there's a new P67 coming, but maybe not.

 

<p>

 

Personally, I would oppose many "improvements" to the P67. Such things as interchangeable backs, autofocus, etc. would totally change the purpose of the camera. To me, a major attraction of the camera is its simplicity. But a couple of minor modifications or additions to the system wouldn't hurt: (1) half-stop steps in the shutter speeds; (2) a spot metering prism; (3) a higher flash sych speed.

I haven't used one, but after buying a Mamiya 6 system, I've thought about trading my Pentax 67 system for one. Here's one concern I've had: What is the shortest lens that you can use with this camera and still have reasonable movements? When I see systems advertised, the shortest lens seems to be a 65, which isn't as wide as I'd like (I use the 45mm a lot with the Pentax.)

I'm not sure why the hypothetical numbers given demonstrate the clear superiority of MF over 35mm, at least with respect to resolution. If in fact you get 2700 line of resolution with MF vs. 2400 with 35 mm, that's a pretty insignificant (12.5 percent) difference. I understand that there may be advantages other than just resolution in the final enlarged images. I certainly hope so, given the expense, weight and bulk we all suffer with by using MF gear.

Although Bogen does not recommend it, I have had good results with the Bogen 3001 as a MF backpacking tripod. I have used it with a Pentax 67, and I imagine that with a TLR, like the Mamiya, it would work even better (less shutter vibration, no mirror slap, probably lighter, doesn't need to be turned sideways for verticals, etc.). Like any tripod light enough for backpacking, there are compromises, and you have to be careful in use (avoid extending it all the way, avoid windy conditions, etc.), but I have been able to get sharp results with it. I use the Bogen Medium Ball head (which is surprisingly sturdy) with a Stroboframe QR.

Yes, brighter aftermarket viewing screens will affect the reading of ttl meters that read through the screen. The easiest way to deal with this is by adjusting the ASA setting of your meter. So, if your aftermarket screen is 2 stops brighter than the original, set ASA 2 stops slower than the film you are using. E.g., if you normally set ASA at 100 for a particular film, use 25 instead. Of course, if you use really slow film, this may not be practical on some meters. If you normally do tests to establish a personal exposure index for the films you use, it's probably best just to re-do them with the new screen in place.

You've discovered what, to me, is the most serious disadvantage of moving from 35mm to MF. Lenses of a given focal length have the same depth of field no matter what size film is put behind them. In 35mm, a 20mm lens at f/22 can keep everything in focus from a foot or foot and a half to infinity. The approximately equivalent lens on the Pentax 6x7 (45mm) shows depth of field at f/22 as about 3.5 feet to infinity (and this is calculated using a larger "circle of confusion" than with the 35mm lens).

I don't have a direct answer to your question, but I can tell you that $130 for an 8x10 Cibachrome is absurdly expensive. Check out the very informative web page for Rob Reiter's Lightroom in Berkeley, CA at http://www.lightroom.com. He does excellent work and charges $17.00 for an 8x10 Cibachrome (extra for contrast masking, etc.). Even a 16x20 is only $50. I can deal with him in person, but I know he does a lot of work by mail.

If your main use will be for landscapes, you should

seriously consider the Pentax 67. Here's why:

 

<p>

 

1. Cost. For the cost of a used Hassy body, back and normal lens, you can pick up an entire used Pentax 67 system (body, TTL finder & 3 lenses).

 

<p>

 

2. Lens quality. The Pentax 67 lenses are great. People will argue endlessly about the quality of different brand lenses, but in fact current lenses for medium format from major manufacturers are seem to be excellent and the practical differences are probably negligible. There is also a very wide selection of lenses, from 35mm fisheye to 1000 mm.

 

<p>

 

3. Ease of use. Looks and handles like a big, manual 35mm. The switch from 35 to the Pentax 67 is quite easy.

 

<p>

 

4. Durability. Built like a tank. (Pretty heavy as a result).

 

<p>

 

5. Format. The 6x7 format gives you a bigger neg or transparency than a 4.5 x 6 (which, to me just doesn't seem enough larger than 35mm to be worth the bother and expense). If you are shooting 6x6 squares, as with Hassy, you are likely to be cropping down to 6x4.5. Of course, you get fewer shots per roll, so film & processing cost is 20% higher.

 

<p>

 

Most of the disadvantages of the Pentax (slow flash sych, no

interchangeable back) are not particularly relevant to landscape

photography. If you want a tool to take great pictures (rather than an object of envy), the Pentax is a great choice.

 

<p>

 

Chris Patti

Does anyone have an opinion on the Yashicamat tele and wide angle accessories? I've seen references to possible image quality issues, but no direct opinions from users. To what focal lengths do these convert the prime lens? Any operational issues or quirks worth noting? Thanks for any info.

There has been a lot on this subject in MFD over the years, but I

was hoping that someone with broad knowldege might be able to lay

out all of the plausible options. I am interested in a reasonably

light, compact second MF camera. I will use it mostly for

landscape, but also for some street/travel photography. My absolute

requirements include: (1) compact size and weight (I have a Pentax

67 for when I want a big, heavy camera), (2) low price (no plaubel

makinas or Mamiya 6 or 7s), (3) a built-in meter (I'm no good a

guessing, and what good is a small camera if you have to lug a spot

meter?). Bonus points for (1) larger formats (e.g., 67 v. 645),

(2) wider lenses. Of course optical quality and durability are

considerations as well. Would anyone care to lay out the options

with commentary on pros & cons? Model names are helpful, since I've

been bewildered in the past by, for example, the various Fuji 645

models. Thanks.

I have both the 90/2.8 and the 165/2.8. Although I've done no tests, I find both to produce excellent, very sharp results (especially the 90). I wish the 165 focussed a bit closer, however.