d2f

Like yourself I am a medium format shooter who carries a 35mm for those times where fast action or portablility is a necessity. I own both AE-1 (& AE-1 program) and F-1N, and rarely use either anymore, but instead recommend the T-90 over both. The F-1N is heavy and match the AE-1, requires the AE prism for autoexposure, and a motor drive for full autoexposure capabilites. The T-90 manual and AE operations, and has a built-in motor drive and much lighter and has a higher sync speed for outdoor fill flash operations. The F-1N has 100% viewfinder whereas the others are closer to 95%. The F-1N is built solid and can take professional abuse. The T-90 has been out in the misty rain with me and has continued to operate. The T-90 has various metering patterns built-in, the F-1N requires you to change the focusing screen to get a different metering pattern (they run about $60 a pop). The T-90 also has interchangeable focusing screens should you need to change it. The F-1N shutter is built to last a lifetime, the AE-1 shutter will start to make noises over time, my T-90 make no such noises after many years of heavy use. The T-90 operates off AA batteries (don't use high power AAs) whereas the AE-1 and F-1N uses smaller specialized photo batteries, no difference unless you forget to bring a spare, at which point I dump the flash batteries to keep the T-90 going, the AE-1 and F-1N don't have that option.

Well that is my two cents on this subject.

The M7 II has a slightly higher contrast viewfinder image due to an enchancement filter seen on the front.

As for the issue of the collasping vs non collasping camera bodies; M6 vs M7, the difference is easy to see. The M6 does not have any wide angle lens that come close to the film. This allows any M6 lens to be mounted and collasped for storage.

But in the case of the the M7 and 43mm lens, where the back element of the lens comes within millimeters of the film itself. Common sense show us that to have that lens mounted would make the collasping body option impossible. Also without the collasping design, with the M7 there is less chance of optical misalignment over time and the pulling in of dust into the camera body itself during expansion as seen with the M6 body design.

As for the minor optical finder difference (M7 v M7 II), I sent my M7 in and had Mamiya retrofit it to the M7 II version at a reasonable cost. You can buy the good used M7 body and sent it in for a retrofit for far less than buying a new M7 II body. Contact you're local Mamiya sales rep and he can give you his card and call into the factory for a price qoute. His card can expedite the service with no additional cost to you.

Don

I found myself in the same boat and deciding between the 3057 head and

the 3038 super ball head. Both can support the 3297 large plate which

I found was ideal for my Korona 8x10 camera. In the end I chose the

3038 ball head and 3297 large plate, holding the hex plate for my

RZ67II. This head mated to the 3258 tripod is a winning combination

for heavy loads such as a 8x10 camera.