Long trip -- Mamiya 7II or Xpan?

[StuartR]

I know that sometimes these threads are frowned upon, and I am not writing it to say "hey look at me, I have all this cool stuff". I realize I am lucky to own both cameras, but I was wondering if people could help me hash out the pros and cons of them with regards to long term travel.

I am going to be taking an Icelandic course this summer, which will have me three weeks at the university of Minnesota and then six weeks in Iceland. The last three weeks I will be on my own, free to travel and photograph the whole time.

So, my dilemma is whether to bring the Mamiya 7II or Xpan with 45mm. Both are great cameras, but I am having trouble deciding which is a better choice. The cameras will mostly be used for landscape photography, as the M stuff will cover more of the street photography in town.

The Mamiya has the huge negatives and the superb lenses (I have the 43, 80 and 150, but I would probably only bring the 43 and 80), but it is heavier, bulkier and a bigger system than the Xpan. It has the advantage of being able to create the same quality panaramas as the Xpan, as well as bringing the quality of MF to normal use if I need it. BUT, film in Iceland is extremely expensive and availability is scarce outside Reykjavik, so I would have to bring all my 120/220 with me. Given 10 shots a roll, 3 weeks of film is a lot, let alone the whole trip of 9 weeks. This is the X factor (no xpan pun intended) that is making me nervous about just bringing it along.

The Xpan uses 35mm which would make it a lot easier to standardize with the rest of my kit (a Leica M with a few lenses), but its MF quality only works for panaramas (which are quite useful in Iceland), and I only have the 45mm lens. That said, it is a great camera to work with, it is lighter and more compact than the Mamiya, has a better meter, motorized advance, and takes more shots on a roll. It also does not require an aux viewfinder for using the 45mm lens (the M7II does for its 43).

Otherwise, the systems are pretty much a wash...both have superb, but slow lenses. Is there anything I am missing?

For what it's worth, I will be living in an apartment, so I will not have to carry them with me everywhere all the time, though I will have to carry them to and from the airport and it carry-on etc.

Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts, biases or suggestions I would love to hear them.

 

[sf]

Mamiya. No question. Especially with the panoramic adapter - then you have both cameras in one. Kind of. But why shoot 35mm when you can shoot MF?

The film issue. . . .9 weeks is a long time. I'd have to bring a couple bricks of my favorite film. Like 40 rolls at least. Benefit of the Mamiya - you'll probably be more choosy about shooting, and you'll have MF image quality - you'll be very happy you do when it matters.

Benefit of the Xpan - small, more logical to carry around, no lens changing is necessary since you can get wide or normal simply by changing the mask. It's probably also less conspicuous, which I like about my Bronica. And, you can fit a whole lot more film in a bag.

Question is, I guess, are you going there to shoot stuff for poster sized prints, or are you there to shoot stuff for 8x10 enlargements? I know I would have been totally fine with a Leica on my Eurotrip - the 120 neg was only really useful for a couple shots.

 

[simonankor]

If I were going, my Rollei would be coming with me. So I guess I'd edge towards the Mamiya for that big neg, and just leave plenty of room for film! I'd probably leave out the normal lens and just take the 43 and 150.

But that's just me, and I'm weird 😉

 

[sf]

If I were going, my Rollei would be coming with me. So I guess I'd edge towards the Mamiya for that big neg, and just leave plenty of room for film! I'd probably leave out the normal lens and just take the 43 and 150.

But that's just me, and I'm weird 😉

you know. . . with that 43mm, you can really do everything. You really want the HUGE negative when you're shooting wide angle anyway. You can crop from the center of the neg to get the 150mm simulation, and you'll still have totally reasonable resolution.

I shot with the 45mm on the Bronica exclusively in Europe. You'd probably be fine with only the 43mm . . . oh. . .. but it isn't coupled is it. . . is it?

 

[jdos2]

7. Bring the 43mm, 80, and 150.

And we can then compare picture. I did Portugal that way more than once. Beautiful shots, easy processing. Good luck!

 

[StuartR]

Thanks for the help guys.

George -- I had heard of the panarama adapter for the M7II, but I have heard that it is difficult to use, expensive, fidgety, and you need to shoot the whole roll before you remove it. Though it solves the problem of the film availability, I think I would rather just take both than do that solution.

I am leaning towards the M7II just because it really is versatile. The only thing that annoys me a bit is that there is only ONE black and white film available in 220 -- TXP. It's fine, but not my first choice, particularly for landscape. I wish Acros was available, but it isn't, so I would have to bring it in 120.

The 43mm is extremely useful, but I would probably bring the 80mm over the 150. The 150's big problem is that it does not focus closer than 1.8m, and it is slower than the 80mm. Since 6x7 is so huge, you can generally just crop. The 150mm really is a great lens, but if space is an issue, I think it is pretty easy to leave out. If only it would focus to 1m, I think it would be more useful...just to have a bit higher of a reproduction factor.

And George -- wouldn't cropping the 43mm to the 150mm size use about half frame of a 35mm neg? Because if you crop the 43mm to 35mm frame size, then it has the field of view of a 43mm lens. To get the field of view of the 150mm lens (about 70mm in a 35mm equiv), you would need to crop all the way down to about 60% of a 35mm neg. Or is that totally wrong?

As for the print sizes, I generally print 11x14 from 35mm, but from the M7II I might go bigger. Even so, at 11x14 the 6x7 negs look a lot better than the 35mm negs.

 

[sf]

Thanks for the help guys.

George -- I had heard of the panarama adapter for the M7II, but I have heard that it is difficult to use, expensive, fidgety, and you need to shoot the whole roll before you remove it. Though it solves the problem of the film availability, I think I would rather just take both than do that solution.

I am leaning towards the M7II just because it really is versatile. The only thing that annoys me a bit is that there is only ONE black and white film available in 220 -- TXP. It's fine, but not my first choice, particularly for landscape. I wish Acros was available, but it isn't, so I would have to bring it in 120.

The 43mm is extremely useful, but I would probably bring the 80mm over the 150. The 150's big problem is that it does not focus closer than 1.8m, and it is slower than the 80mm. Since 6x7 is so huge, you can generally just crop. The 150mm really is a great lens, but if space is an issue, I think it is pretty easy to leave out. If only it would focus to 1m, I think it would be more useful...just to have a bit higher of a reproduction factor.

And George -- wouldn't cropping the 43mm to the 150mm size use about half frame of a 35mm neg? Because if you crop the 43mm to 35mm frame size, then it has the field of view of a 43mm lens. To get the field of view of the 150mm lens (about 70mm in a 35mm equiv), you would need to crop all the way down to about 60% of a 35mm neg. Or is that totally wrong?

As for the print sizes, I generally print 11x14 from 35mm, but from the M7II I might go bigger. Even so, at 11x14 the 6x7 negs look a lot better than the 35mm negs.

You're right about that crop factor/35mm form factor, but who needs 150mm? You don't have anything like that for hte xpan anyway. My point is that you can get everything from the 43mm, 80mm, 150mm from the 6x7 neg. Really, if you would survive with the 45mm on the hassy, you'd have equivalent performance taking that out of the center of the 6x7 frame. 43mm will cover everything. But

I would just bring the 43 and the 80mm. Forget the 150,

But really, is the 43mm coupled? Too bad you don't have the 65mm. Then you'd be just fine.

Oh. . . you know what you really need?

The RF645 + 45mm. 😀

then you'd be golden.

buy a couple bricks of Arista.edu Ultra 200 from freestyle photo. Cost you somewhere around $55 for 40 rolls. Then you don't have to worry about the cost per frame thing.

 

[Dougg]

Stuart, I think you've photographed in Iceland before, so this experience should be a good guide, combined with your best estimation of what you'd like to do photographically this time. I am a fan of versatility and medium format, so I'd tend to prefer the 6x7 over the XPan, which is likely more limiting. But then I haven't used an XPan, and I just ordered a 35mm film pano kit for my 6x7, so I guess I'll see how that works out.

Does the Mamiya get 20 or 21 shots on 220? In either case that's one or two more than an XPan gets with a 36-exp roll isn't it? And TXP is tremendously versatile in itself, given how differently it responds with different EIs and soups. There should be SOME combination to please you. 🙂

 

[berci]

You said that you are not going to carry all of your stuff with you all the time, you could take both and then decide on the spot. This way you would have a spare system to fall back upon in the unlikely case that one of them failed.

 

[clarence]

Just to add to an already rich discussion:

I never believed in shooting with a wide-angle and then cropping for a tele-photo effect, because the result is hardly the same. You won't get a crompression of perspective that way, and objects will seem further apart, than they would if you used a tele-photo lens.

I hope you'll be happy with your decision, Stuart. I'm planning for my summer trip to Europe as well, and so far I've decided on:

Mamiya 6MF + 50mm, 150mm (without panoramic adapter) for general use
Fed2F + 25mm for street photography
Agat-18k half frame for snapshots and documentation

I think I might bring the cheap, light tripod that's sitting in the back of my cupboard as well. It's too bad I can't afford a nice carbon-fibre tripod.

Have fun!

Clarence

 

[StuartR]

George -- the 43mm IS coupled, and 43mm on 6x7 is definitely wider than 45mm on the Bronica RF. That said, the Bronica is a nice small kit.

Doug -- it is kind of hard actually. When I was in Iceland I wished I had a panaramic camera, but the Mamiya 7 can do that too, so having a medium format super wide would be a good thing. For example, this is a panarama made with the 21mm voigtlander, and it would have been much better had it been with the Xpan or from the Mamiya:

That said, there were a lot of general wide angle things as well that the Mamiya might handle better, like this one:

Anyway, I may take both, I will have to pack my full kit and see how heavy it is. I am thinking overkill though, as I will also be taking my M kit and an SLR. The problem is that Iceland calls for such extremes. I used a bunch of super-wides and the 135mm lens (my longest) was on my camera very often. Then you add the general street photography stuff and the kit gets really big.

I guess the only way to really hash out what I need it is pack it, and see how massively I have overpacked.

 

[sf]

I know that sometimes these threads are frowned upon, and I am not writing it to say "hey look at me, I have all this cool stuff". I realize I am lucky to own both cameras, but I was wondering if people could help me hash out the pros and cons of them with regards to long term travel.

I am going to be taking an Icelandic course this summer, which will have me three weeks at the university of Minnesota and then six weeks in Iceland. The last three weeks I will be on my own, free to travel and photograph the whole time.

You're luckier to be taking such a class than you are to own both those cameras.

What a beautiful place. Bring the Mamiya 7II and the M Kit with a longer lens selection. Then you can catch sketchy images of Bjork and Sigur Ros.

 

[Dougg]

I never believed in shooting with a wide-angle and then cropping for a tele-photo effect, because the result is hardly the same. You won't get a crompression of perspective that way, and objects will seem further apart, than they would if you used a tele-photo lens.

Off the thread topic, but worth underscoring that cropping a section out of the middle of a wide-angle shot gives exactly the same perspective as the same framing with a telephoto; perspective is solely determined by camera position, not the lens. You can easily test this yourself... 🙂 I would certainly agree with you that cropping a wide-angle shot to get the telephoto framing is far from ideal, losing sharpness and gaining grain, maybe best reserved for emergencies!

 

[clarence]

Doug,

You're right.

Clarence

 

[StuartR]

You're luckier to be taking such a class than you are to own both those cameras.

What a beautiful place. Bring the Mamiya 7II and the M Kit with a longer lens selection. Then you can catch sketchy images of Bjork and Sigur Ros.

I think you are right about this! I am very much looking forward to learning some Icelandic, because I think it will allow me to interact there in a different kind of way. It is almost more important to speak the language in a place where everyone speaks English, because the fact that most people speak fluent English gives you a false impression that you are really getting at the culture. You can only really get at the heart of a culture by speaking its lanuage...at least that is how I feel anyway. Also, it is easier to meet Icelandic snow babes when you can woo them with their mother tongue.

 

[sf]

Just to add to an already rich discussion:

I never believed in shooting with a wide-angle and then cropping for a tele-photo effect, because the result is hardly the same. You won't get a crompression of perspective that way, and objects will seem further apart, than they would if you used a tele-photo lens.

Clarence

good to know. Never really thought about the compression effect. Better bring the 43 and the 80 and the mkit.

 

[StuartR]

Actually George -- look up to Doug's comments...you DO get the compression effect. It is about camera to subject distance, not focal length.

 

[sf]

Actually George -- look up to Doug's comments...you DO get the compression effect. It is about camera to subject distance, not focal length.

well, then, I guess I don't know what I'm talking about.

That's why we have people like Doug. To fill in the blanks.

 

[Dougg]

George, it's ok; please don't feel bad. I'm sure there's lots of things you know that I don't. We can all enjoy learning from each other here. 😀

 

[StuartR]

Hey, I didn't believe it when I first heard it either. I went out and tested it, and it's right.