icemendicant
Established
I've been thinking about getting larger negs than 35mm for a while - my Leicas are fantastic for all the things a small light RF with fast lenses is best at, obviously, but for walks in the countryside shooting some landscapes etc I wanted a little more image real estate.
So - just got my Mamiya 7 II this morning, with the 80/4 lens. Looks great, and is more solidly built than I thought it might be having read some of the (often conflicting) reviews online. There's a Kirk L-plate on the way for my tripod but I'm off for a hike tomorrow morning so I'll just have a play and see how it goes.
I'll post some pics online when I get the first few films processed.
Best regards... Dan
So - just got my Mamiya 7 II this morning, with the 80/4 lens. Looks great, and is more solidly built than I thought it might be having read some of the (often conflicting) reviews online. There's a Kirk L-plate on the way for my tripod but I'm off for a hike tomorrow morning so I'll just have a play and see how it goes.
I'll post some pics online when I get the first few films processed.
Best regards... Dan
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
A good friend of mine has two, with assorted lenses. In fact, the only one he doesn't have is the 43mm.
These cameras are nice, very sophisticated, sturdy enough and yet very elegant. And they're versatile as well... there is a mask you can use to shoot 35mm film with them. Otherwise, it's all 120 or 220 to get very nice 6X7 slides that are a joy to look at in a lightbox.
In other words... congratulations!
Now, is it black or champaigne?
These cameras are nice, very sophisticated, sturdy enough and yet very elegant. And they're versatile as well... there is a mask you can use to shoot 35mm film with them. Otherwise, it's all 120 or 220 to get very nice 6X7 slides that are a joy to look at in a lightbox.
In other words... congratulations!
Now, is it black or champaigne?
R
rpsawin
Guest
Your gonna love it! Treat yourself to a real surprise and shoot some chromes with it. Then, put them on a light table and watch them jump at you.
Congrats and Best Regards,
Bob
Congrats and Best Regards,
Bob
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
love mine, congrats!
Pretty exciting new rig, with big luscious negs... Have fun!
icemendicant
Established
Thanks for the kind words - I'm looking forward to getting my first negs back, and I have a few rolls of Velvia 50 thawing out ready for when the weather brightens up (it rained all day today, when I was planning to take a long walk with my new camera, so I had be content with some B&W shots taken from under a large umbrella).
It's a black M7, by the way, rather than the champagne model.
At some point I'm going to want a wider lens, probably wider than the 65mm, but I'm not sure of the choice between 43mm and 50mm apart from the obvious FOV considerations. Any thoughts on image quality, ease of use issues or any other information to help me choose between these two lenses?
Thanks again,
Dan
It's a black M7, by the way, rather than the champagne model.
At some point I'm going to want a wider lens, probably wider than the 65mm, but I'm not sure of the choice between 43mm and 50mm apart from the obvious FOV considerations. Any thoughts on image quality, ease of use issues or any other information to help me choose between these two lenses?
Thanks again,
Dan
As I understand it, Dan, the 43 and 50mm lenses are of similar design and image quality, and both call for an external accessory viewfinder. So, similar usage too, and the 50 is the more recently-introduced lens.
I think the choice boils down to which angle of view you'd find most useful. Rather like the choice of 21mm or 24mm for a Leica, for instance. The 43mm is bordering "extreme" - a niche product - and can be more difficult to use effectively, but there are times when that's just what's needed!
I think the choice boils down to which angle of view you'd find most useful. Rather like the choice of 21mm or 24mm for a Leica, for instance. The 43mm is bordering "extreme" - a niche product - and can be more difficult to use effectively, but there are times when that's just what's needed!
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I bought the 43mm at a time when the 50mm didn't exist. I find the 43mm hard to work with, but I'm not really a wide guy (in 35mm, I mostly shoot in the 35mm - 100mm range.) Also, the other lens I owned was the 80mm. Coming from the 65mm, you might the 43mm to be a more useful alternative. I would also say that if you shoot panoramics, either with the finicky panoramic adapter, or by masking your 120 or 220 film, the 43mm gives a very nice angle of view.
Attachments
Dante
Digital Dragon Slayer
When I had a 35mm lens, I need a 28mm. Then that wasn't wide enough so I got a 24mm. Then, I got a 17mm ... I think you see where I'm going here.
When I got my Mamiya 7II I got the 80mm and the 43mm ... because I knew that what I like to see in my wide angle shots is not available in the "standard" wide-angle lenses like a (in 135 equiv.) 35, 28 or 24.
Not saying that the "standard" wide-angles aren't useful. Just that sometimes ... they aren't wide enough. If you're going to have to use and external viewfinder anyway ... go for the 43 ... you won't be disappointed.
UPDATE ... about the Hyperfocal issue with the 7II
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] I'm a die-hard RZ fan. I love the 6x7 neg and the results from that camera. That said, lugging it around Italy for three weeks in the early summer of 2004 was a chore. I've never regretted taking it because of the 20x24 images I now have hanging on my walls are amazingly sharp and contrasty ... results I'd not have seen in a 35mm or high-end digital.
I'm headed back to Europe this summer. Not wanting to give up the 6x7 neg and not wanting to carry my very heavy RZ ... I bought a Mamiya 7II with a 43mm and 80mm lens. My testing of this camera has proven that I made a wise decision for a travel camera.
Image quality from the 7II is just as amazing as from my RZ. True there is a hyperfocal issue ... but the answer is not shooting at f/22 with your infinity mark at f/16 or f/11 as most people suggest. This is a little off-topic, but I think someone looking at the 7II, or using a 7II might want to know.
The problem with this shooting at f/22 or f/16 approach is the distortion caused by stopping all the way down. Two generally accepted rules-of-thumb are that a lens is sharpest two-stops from wide open and that stopping down to the minimum f-stop actually reduces sharpness while maximizing depth-of-field.
My testing has shown that using the guide in the lens manual gives you a good starting point for getting proper hyperfocal results. Though, those results need to be tested too.
I found that the 43mm lens, focused at 7m and stopped down to f/11 produced the best hyperfocal results with that lens ... just slightly better than f/8.
With the 80mm lens, also stopped down to f/11, the point of focus setting on the lens is a little more tricky. The right side of the infinity mark needs to rest just inside the right-side f/11 marking on the lens. The focus point is on the far-right edge of the zero on the 10m mark.
My best suggestion is testing it yourself and get truly sharp results with maximum depth-of-field without gaining the distortion caused by stopping down to f/16 or f/22.
I find that both of these lenses produce the best results between wide open and f/11. f/16 and f/22 were softer at the point-of-focus, even though they obviously had more depth-of-field. And, when shooting things that aren't hyperfocal ... I've found that f/8 on both of those lenses really is the sweet spot on those lenses.
Just my 6x7 cents worth ...[/FONT] [/FONT]
When I got my Mamiya 7II I got the 80mm and the 43mm ... because I knew that what I like to see in my wide angle shots is not available in the "standard" wide-angle lenses like a (in 135 equiv.) 35, 28 or 24.
Not saying that the "standard" wide-angles aren't useful. Just that sometimes ... they aren't wide enough. If you're going to have to use and external viewfinder anyway ... go for the 43 ... you won't be disappointed.
UPDATE ... about the Hyperfocal issue with the 7II
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] I'm a die-hard RZ fan. I love the 6x7 neg and the results from that camera. That said, lugging it around Italy for three weeks in the early summer of 2004 was a chore. I've never regretted taking it because of the 20x24 images I now have hanging on my walls are amazingly sharp and contrasty ... results I'd not have seen in a 35mm or high-end digital.
I'm headed back to Europe this summer. Not wanting to give up the 6x7 neg and not wanting to carry my very heavy RZ ... I bought a Mamiya 7II with a 43mm and 80mm lens. My testing of this camera has proven that I made a wise decision for a travel camera.
Image quality from the 7II is just as amazing as from my RZ. True there is a hyperfocal issue ... but the answer is not shooting at f/22 with your infinity mark at f/16 or f/11 as most people suggest. This is a little off-topic, but I think someone looking at the 7II, or using a 7II might want to know.
The problem with this shooting at f/22 or f/16 approach is the distortion caused by stopping all the way down. Two generally accepted rules-of-thumb are that a lens is sharpest two-stops from wide open and that stopping down to the minimum f-stop actually reduces sharpness while maximizing depth-of-field.
My testing has shown that using the guide in the lens manual gives you a good starting point for getting proper hyperfocal results. Though, those results need to be tested too.
I found that the 43mm lens, focused at 7m and stopped down to f/11 produced the best hyperfocal results with that lens ... just slightly better than f/8.
With the 80mm lens, also stopped down to f/11, the point of focus setting on the lens is a little more tricky. The right side of the infinity mark needs to rest just inside the right-side f/11 marking on the lens. The focus point is on the far-right edge of the zero on the 10m mark.
My best suggestion is testing it yourself and get truly sharp results with maximum depth-of-field without gaining the distortion caused by stopping down to f/16 or f/22.
I find that both of these lenses produce the best results between wide open and f/11. f/16 and f/22 were softer at the point-of-focus, even though they obviously had more depth-of-field. And, when shooting things that aren't hyperfocal ... I've found that f/8 on both of those lenses really is the sweet spot on those lenses.
Just my 6x7 cents worth ...[/FONT] [/FONT]
Last edited: