mamiya universal, fuji rangefinder, or other...

[oftheherd]

Oftheheard, well, Roger Hicks doesn't have much good to say about it. I think some others had jumped in to agree. I've also heard grumblings on the Super23 group at Flickr. But having to be shown, I did my own test, only at wide open, if you are interested I'll dig it out.

The fact remains that a 6x9 lens has to cover a much larger area than a 6x6 so Mamiya to me has done a great job these lenses. Thanks for the comment on that photo. I knew from the negative drying it was a winner for me.

EDIT: I'm not really use to using 'tilt, shift, rise (which 23 does not have)' but I find this feature very difficult to use.

Well, what does Roger Hicks know about anything photographic? I know he was not favorably inpressed with some of the earlier Press lenses, and I believe Mr. Hicks to be a good judge of things photographic. However, I can only go on my experiences with what I have used. My 100mm f/3.5 has done very well by me. That only means I was happy. But I don't have the experience of comparing different types of lenses and cameras that Mr. Hicks has.

I'm leaning towards the Mamiya Press because the images on flickr look better to me. This is maybe not the best way of assessing a lens .... but Mamiya does have a sweet f2.8 lens available (although I may stick with f3.5).

I'm not interested in the folder anymore because the results and opinions are too mixed. If I'm going to bother with 6x9, then I want to know that I'm getting the best out of my lens. I would consider the Makina 67 and the Fuji GF670 if they were 6x9, but they are not and hence too pricey for a format that I care less about.

About the Mamiya Press. I'm just interested in a 6x9 back and a 100mm lens (f2.8 or f3.5).

1. What are the pros/cons between the super 23 and the universal?

2. Is the type III back and grip really that important? I know that the type III back and the grip are highly desired, but does anyone shoot with without these two?

Don't be too quick on giving up on folders. There are some good ones out there. Like any old camera, some you will acquire are trash, some great, and some in between.

As I see it, the only major difference between the Universal and the Press are the backs. Others have already commented on that. Most people aren't going to get te polaroid backs due to expense and lack of easy availability of film. The other backs aren't needed either imho, unless you want to dabble in cut film, but all of the cut film backs fit either camera. If you don't need the bellows back, either camera will do.

I have never seen a Universal, so some of the Super23 cons that I have experienced are: forgetting to wind the film which can cause double exposures, or if you forget to remove the dark slide you get a blank frame, and/or any variation for the two above cons that may quadradically expand. Really the tilt back feature is not of great value but some may like it. It is heavy, but not anything you wouldn't expect from a 6x9. You do have to tune up the rangefinder, but that isn't very hard to do. If you have a ground glass back you can use the 100mm for close ups though:

...

But I wanted a 6x9 so I bought this one, I'm happy with it and the short comings I'm happy to live with.

Yep, one does have to have a work flow and use it enough to keep the flow going. I have had the same problems.

Only have the Standard 23 and Super 23 to compare. Must say I like the Standard best because of the better defined rangfinder patch, lock on the lens fitting and fixed back. The bellows don't keep closed well on my Super and in order to use them you need the ground glass and tripod making it a very large and heavy package. And I find rise/fall more usefull than tilt. But if tilt and close-up are things you care about then that could be different of course.
Have't used them enough to say something about the lenses but the collapsible one on the Super doesn't attract me at all. Just another thing to forget and the gain in collapsing it is so ridiculous that I wouldn't do it anyway. I'd say go for a ridgid lens.

Only have the first type backs.

Some of the Press 23 cameras did have a problem with the RF patch going dark. Often it can be fixed with a black patch in the rf window. I have two bodies that have that problem, but the are parts cameras to me anyway, so I don't care. My original body has yet to exhibit that problem, but one of the locks for the bellows back broke (hence the two parts bodies). But I can use it with just those three if I am not trying tilt, which I almost never do, so I have yet to fix it.

Rise/fall and shift can be found on some 6x9 folders, but it isn't common. It is fairly common on 9x12 folders however. I have heard there were 9x12 folders that had tilt, but I have never seen one.

I do have a 6x9 folder with tilt. One day perhaps I will fix the darn lens mount on the Mosva so I don't have to worry about that tilt.

 

[RBruceCR]

To add to this otherwise complete dissertation about the benefits of owing a Mamiya Press (Standard23, Universal23 or Super23), which I own and have been able to enjoy thoroughly, here is a link about Don McCulling enjoying his Mamiya Press shooting the British (I hope Scotland doesn't secede) landscape!

BBC Imagine Don McCullin's feature...he now uses a Mamiya Press to shoot landscapes.

http://t.co/1ajNujDYIL http://t.co/9U73qc7ivJ

As per the probable issues with the Super against the Universal is the bellows that can be torn given the age. I rather have a Universal as it can be bought with a Polaroid back to be filled with pack film from Impossible! and Fuji. Also a number of roll film adapters can be found yet for the camera.

 

[shadowfox]

Thanks for the link to the documentary.

Another famous photographer who use (used) the MUP is William Eggleston.

 

[charjohncarter]

OK, you be the judge, 100mm f3.5 wide open.

full frame:

center crop:

lower right corner crop:

focused with the rangefinder. There was no post scanning sharpening.

 

[RBruceCR]

I wonder how colorful were the owls!

 

[charjohncarter]

I wonder how colorful were the owls!

Just brown and black.