TJV
Well-known
I own both and they're both brilliant but as an all around, carry everywhere camera, the Leica would probably be a better choice if only because of the fast lenses.
Lately I've been shooting 95% with the Mamiya 7ii but I see much more Leica shooting in my future - mainly quick street work and, as you put it, "sketch book" type stuff.
Lately I've been shooting 95% with the Mamiya 7ii but I see much more Leica shooting in my future - mainly quick street work and, as you put it, "sketch book" type stuff.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I shoot both Leica Ms and the Mamiya 7ii. I find the difference in lens speed and depth of field to be so significant as to make them very different beasts. I cannot shoot them interchangeably.
/T
/T
PATB
Established
I have both (MP and M7II) and they are not interchangeable. I am glad I have both of them.
I will print 16x20 in a darkroom workshop this weekend: that calls for big negatives.
But I need fast lenses, smaller package, and more shots per roll than I need bigger negatives most of the time. If I have to choose between the two, the M stays.
I am browsing Edouard Boubat: The Monograph at the moment. You can tell the medium format shots from the Leica. But tell you what, it does not matter which camera he used to take the shot -- they are all excellent photography.
I will print 16x20 in a darkroom workshop this weekend: that calls for big negatives.
But I need fast lenses, smaller package, and more shots per roll than I need bigger negatives most of the time. If I have to choose between the two, the M stays.
I am browsing Edouard Boubat: The Monograph at the moment. You can tell the medium format shots from the Leica. But tell you what, it does not matter which camera he used to take the shot -- they are all excellent photography.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Jim,
As you replacing your walk around camera, what about the new Fuji/Cosina folder? It should fit in a big jacket pocket without problems. Lens seems reasonably fast and it has a built in meter. The down side is it does not have interchangeable lenses, but then it is very small.
I have to agree that having less shots on a roll is very appealing and LARGE negatives are much more fun to deal with, scanning or printing.
Another option (but it's going over to the Dark Side) is the GR-D II and a CV Metal 28mm Bright Line Viewfinder on top. Fits in shirt pocket, great lens, lots of megapixels and shoots raw!
B2 (;->
As you replacing your walk around camera, what about the new Fuji/Cosina folder? It should fit in a big jacket pocket without problems. Lens seems reasonably fast and it has a built in meter. The down side is it does not have interchangeable lenses, but then it is very small.
I have to agree that having less shots on a roll is very appealing and LARGE negatives are much more fun to deal with, scanning or printing.
Another option (but it's going over to the Dark Side) is the GR-D II and a CV Metal 28mm Bright Line Viewfinder on top. Fits in shirt pocket, great lens, lots of megapixels and shoots raw!
B2 (;->
Svitantti
Well-known
I have a Mamiya 7 and Leica M4. Wouldn't want to lose my Leica, but the Mamiya bothers me, because I feel I dont use it enough.
Mamiya is nice, it makes great images. I own a 65mm and a 80mm, they are both awesome... But the lenses arent too fast. Of course medium format can tolerate push processing better, but still compared to 1.4 there's some difference. Also the size and electricity are downsides for me. 6x7 projector will cost money too for sure.
Mamiya is nice, it makes great images. I own a 65mm and a 80mm, they are both awesome... But the lenses arent too fast. Of course medium format can tolerate push processing better, but still compared to 1.4 there's some difference. Also the size and electricity are downsides for me. 6x7 projector will cost money too for sure.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I've heard that MF projectors are awesome, but I just scan everything these days, so I don't bother to have chromes mounted, not even 35mm.
/T
waileong
Well-known
I have Mamiya 6 and Leica M7.
I wouldn't trade one for the other.
M6 is very good, and handholdable to 1/8 because of the higher mass. So the f4 limitation of the lenses is tolerable, since you can shoot 120 film at ISO 800 with relatively little grain, even TMZ is relatively grainless.
However, an M7 with a 50/1 or 35/1.4 is a much faster shooting machine, esp with the Rapidwinder.
To use an analogy, the M6 is my rifle, the M7 is my sidearm. Most soldiers will not trade one for the other, and will want to go into combat with both.
I wouldn't trade one for the other.
M6 is very good, and handholdable to 1/8 because of the higher mass. So the f4 limitation of the lenses is tolerable, since you can shoot 120 film at ISO 800 with relatively little grain, even TMZ is relatively grainless.
However, an M7 with a 50/1 or 35/1.4 is a much faster shooting machine, esp with the Rapidwinder.
To use an analogy, the M6 is my rifle, the M7 is my sidearm. Most soldiers will not trade one for the other, and will want to go into combat with both.
percepts
Established
You don't say what you are photographing and where. If its indoors then you will likely need faster lenses than the Mamiya provides. But if its outdoors and landscapes or group shots, then the Mamiya would be a better option.
Since you are actually doing very little then why is it that you are considering a change anyway.
And as others have said, also depends on how you are using the negatives and what size prints you make. In theory bigger neg will always be better quality output. But only if your technique is good to start with. 35mm can and does produce good quality upto 20x16 or bigger if handled really well. Buying a bigger system to cover up poor technique is not the way to go. Using a lightweight monopod for outdoor shots can improve image quality a lot. If you aren't using one, try it and see if that makes the M quality good enough for you. A monopod is light and easy to carry and can double as a walking staff.
Really is a question of getting the right tool for the job at hand and not whether one camera is "better" than another.
Since you are actually doing very little then why is it that you are considering a change anyway.
And as others have said, also depends on how you are using the negatives and what size prints you make. In theory bigger neg will always be better quality output. But only if your technique is good to start with. 35mm can and does produce good quality upto 20x16 or bigger if handled really well. Buying a bigger system to cover up poor technique is not the way to go. Using a lightweight monopod for outdoor shots can improve image quality a lot. If you aren't using one, try it and see if that makes the M quality good enough for you. A monopod is light and easy to carry and can double as a walking staff.
Really is a question of getting the right tool for the job at hand and not whether one camera is "better" than another.
jmooney
Guy with a camera
Hi All,
Thanks for all the continuing advice and thoughts. I'd just thought I'd update you all on where I'm at now:
I've since sold the 8X10 and a 5X7 is on the way. Much more cost effective to run and I can still very nicely scratch my contact printing itch.
I love my M6, it's small, light, stealthy and pretty quick, but most of all I seem to love the idea of it, moreso than shooting with it. It's a joy to use but doesn't quite jive with the way I take pictures so it and it's lenses are up in the classifieds here. Part of my decision is financial. I have a lot tied up in it and were I able to let it sit for when I get the urge to mess about with it I would but I can't right now. I'm positive I'll buy another M one day but it's not the right tool for the job at this point. It's not working as a primary camera for me.
I've also put aside the idea of a MF RF as my "notebook" camera. The close focus issues are the real deal killer for me at this point. I also really had my heart set on 6x7 as I'm not sure that 645 would work for me, mainly because I tend to shoot a lot of horizontals and all of them run the film vertically. The Mamiya 6 is an option but I'm not sure how I feel about the square format, I need to consider this more.
That said what I've wound up on at this point is my trusty Nikon N80. Small, light, AF, AE, pretty quiet, and built in flash. Paired up with a 35/2 and 85/1.8. I'll probably add a second body as they run about $50 these days and dedicate one to each lens. I also have a 24/2.8 that I use on my DSLR to give me a 35 so that's available for wide duty. Not as glamourus as a Leica M kit but very effective and useful. I'll be able to make photographs with it and as much as I love obsessing over gear, that really is what matters.
Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings on this, I'd love to hear them.
Thanks for all the continuing advice and thoughts. I'd just thought I'd update you all on where I'm at now:
I've since sold the 8X10 and a 5X7 is on the way. Much more cost effective to run and I can still very nicely scratch my contact printing itch.
I love my M6, it's small, light, stealthy and pretty quick, but most of all I seem to love the idea of it, moreso than shooting with it. It's a joy to use but doesn't quite jive with the way I take pictures so it and it's lenses are up in the classifieds here. Part of my decision is financial. I have a lot tied up in it and were I able to let it sit for when I get the urge to mess about with it I would but I can't right now. I'm positive I'll buy another M one day but it's not the right tool for the job at this point. It's not working as a primary camera for me.
I've also put aside the idea of a MF RF as my "notebook" camera. The close focus issues are the real deal killer for me at this point. I also really had my heart set on 6x7 as I'm not sure that 645 would work for me, mainly because I tend to shoot a lot of horizontals and all of them run the film vertically. The Mamiya 6 is an option but I'm not sure how I feel about the square format, I need to consider this more.
That said what I've wound up on at this point is my trusty Nikon N80. Small, light, AF, AE, pretty quiet, and built in flash. Paired up with a 35/2 and 85/1.8. I'll probably add a second body as they run about $50 these days and dedicate one to each lens. I also have a 24/2.8 that I use on my DSLR to give me a 35 so that's available for wide duty. Not as glamourus as a Leica M kit but very effective and useful. I'll be able to make photographs with it and as much as I love obsessing over gear, that really is what matters.
Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings on this, I'd love to hear them.
Last edited:
Darren Abate
Professional Shooter
Jonathan,
I agree with most of your points but there is one that I have to markedly disagree with you on, and that is where you say that the M8 or DMR gives you a higher quality image than a scanned 6x7 frame. Having shot with the M8 and DMR, and owning a 7 II and other M's myself, I can say without a doubt that the quality I get from a well-exposed 6x7 frame, properly scanned, beats all the others hands down, especially when the image came through the Mamiya lens, which is absolutely one of the finest pieces of glass I have ever used.
D
Darren Abate
Professional Shooter
You may just get the best of both worlds if you go with a Mamiya 6. The square format is great, IMO, and fits a lot of life's images. Also, the 6's lens mount collapses into the body when not in use, which makes it a ton easier to carry around.
My mainstay is photojournalism, and I regularly carry with me either my M6 TTL or my Mamiya 7 II. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to sell one of them, I think I would have to let the Leica go. I love both of them dearly, and they both have their pros and cons, but every time I look at a neg from the 7 II, it still makes my legs go weak like no other camera I've ever owned.
My only wishes for the 7 II would be that it had a focal plane shutter to allow for faster glass and TTL metering, and that it collapsed into itself like the 6 does. Other than that, I think it's perfect, and I love being able to shoot either 120 or 220 film by just rotating the film plate.Svitantti
Well-known
Well, projected image is completely different. I do have a 6x6 projector, but those don't cost too much. A 6x7 will be probably 10x as much.
One thing about MF projectors is, to use a glass or not... The glass will affect the image quality, but a 6x6 or 6x7 slide will not stay very straight without a glass I guess.
I would suggest everyone to try to project those slides once in a while to remember the difference... As in what does digitizing do to a film image (slide films dark areas etc.)
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I made almost the exact opposite move a few months ago (mamiya 6 to Zeiss Ikon ZM), and my only regret is the loss of the square format and the medium format feel.
But I can't say I regret selling my Mamiya6. It was too heavy to carry around and ended up not being used! I took my Contax T3 instead! I loved that thing (M6), it's just a phenomenal piece of equipment, but for a daily carry-around, not good. The lenses are slow and you can't get close much.
I now use the Zeiss Ikon RF, and I just love how tiny, light and versatile it is.
I wish there was a Mamiya6 a bit smaller and with at least 1/3 less weight...Maybe that new Fuji/Cosina 667?
But I can't say I regret selling my Mamiya6. It was too heavy to carry around and ended up not being used! I took my Contax T3 instead! I loved that thing (M6), it's just a phenomenal piece of equipment, but for a daily carry-around, not good. The lenses are slow and you can't get close much.
I now use the Zeiss Ikon RF, and I just love how tiny, light and versatile it is.
I wish there was a Mamiya6 a bit smaller and with at least 1/3 less weight...Maybe that new Fuji/Cosina 667?
Turtle
Veteran
IMO the Mamiya is not an everyday notebook camera like the leica. I have both a 7II and MP and would not dream of carrying the Mamiya about everyday when on other tasks. The images are stunning and just what you want for landscapes etc, but really the 35mm has all thats needed for street type images and I don't feel the extra resolution of 6x7 brings a lot to the table here. For scenics, environmental portraits etc its another matter. The 7II is light by MF standards nut noticeably bulkier and heavier than an M. Much harder to slip under a coat.
My personal view? Wait, save and add a Mamiya 6/7/7II to the leica or commit heresy and sell the leica, buy a CV or ZM body and use the remainder to pick up a Mamiya.
If you love the 35mm FL on 35mm as I do, the 65 is the lens to get. Then 80 feels narrower and is. The 65 is like a 35mm with more top to bottom depth or a 28 with the edges cropped however you like to think of it. I still feel the 80mm has the performance edge but this is not worth worrying about. I use the 65mm the vast majority of the time and find it just works for about everything.
My personal view? Wait, save and add a Mamiya 6/7/7II to the leica or commit heresy and sell the leica, buy a CV or ZM body and use the remainder to pick up a Mamiya.
If you love the 35mm FL on 35mm as I do, the 65 is the lens to get. Then 80 feels narrower and is. The 65 is like a 35mm with more top to bottom depth or a 28 with the edges cropped however you like to think of it. I still feel the 80mm has the performance edge but this is not worth worrying about. I use the 65mm the vast majority of the time and find it just works for about everything.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I sold my Rf645 and 45mm, 65mm, and 100mm lenses because I lost faith in the film transport. It was repaired once under warranty, and I read about too many other folks having problems. So now I am the happy owner of a Mamiya 7II. Great camera, but keep your 35mm gear for low light shooting. With sufficient light, the 67 negs will blow any 35mm shot out of the water.
The statement that a Mamiya 7 kit is bulky to carry around is preposterous. It's no larger than a 35mm SLR kit.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Just for grins, here is an indoor shot with the Mamiya 7. Shot wide open (f4.5) at I remember 1/30th with the 50mm lens using Delta 3200, pushed to actual 3200. I would not exhibit a print like this from 35mm Delta 3200 but from a 6x7 neg I don't hesitate. Of course you cannot tell much from a JPG but the print fits nicely with photos made in more normal lighting.
I shoot both the Mamiya 7 and a 35mm ZI about 50/50. I use them the same way. I occasionally look at a print from a 35mm neg and wish I had shot it 6x7. But never the other way around.
I shoot both the Mamiya 7 and a 35mm ZI about 50/50. I use them the same way. I occasionally look at a print from a 35mm neg and wish I had shot it 6x7. But never the other way around.
V
varjag
Guest
But of course, with 35mm you could've used 35/1.4 at 1/50 with nice TMY-2 at 400 ISO..
dar
david rizzi
the perfect combo?
the perfect combo?
Weight difference is little, camera size a bit more, neg size lot more.
Considering the advantages of digital cameras I found my perfect combo in a Mamiya 7II (80mm and 50mm lenses) and a Ricoh G100 (useful to preview Mamiya shots, spot metering, macro etc).
I don't see anymore the advantages of 35mm film cameras. I've sold my beloved Bessa R3a for the Ricoh G100, it was very nice to hande, but a nightmare to scan slides and neg. On the contrary I got excellent results (view my photoblog at www.anafricanphotoblog.com) with the Mamiya 7II negs (mainly kodak portra 160) and a flatbed scanner epson 4490.
the perfect combo?
Weight difference is little, camera size a bit more, neg size lot more.
Considering the advantages of digital cameras I found my perfect combo in a Mamiya 7II (80mm and 50mm lenses) and a Ricoh G100 (useful to preview Mamiya shots, spot metering, macro etc).
I don't see anymore the advantages of 35mm film cameras. I've sold my beloved Bessa R3a for the Ricoh G100, it was very nice to hande, but a nightmare to scan slides and neg. On the contrary I got excellent results (view my photoblog at www.anafricanphotoblog.com) with the Mamiya 7II negs (mainly kodak portra 160) and a flatbed scanner epson 4490.
Last edited:
RObert Budding
D'oh!
That is exactly why I still use 35mm for low light!
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Yes, I could. Except:
The 35mm lens on a 35mm camera would not have the field of view to include the entire scene. I already had my back against the wall. I would have needed a 24mm on a 35mm camera.
The DOF at 1.4 would have been a limiting factor.
Now I am not contending that a Mamiya 7 is better than 35mm for low light work. Only that it is as usable because you can use faster film than you could get by with in 35mm.