RF newbie tests Mamiya 6

[nksyoon]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post at RFF. I've been lurking for awhile as I find rangefinders very interesting. One of my early photography experiences was with a Minolta 7sII.

In the last few years I've been completely digital - I now have a Canon 20D plus a couple of lenses - but lately I've been looking to try something different. So I borrowed a Mamiya 6 from a member of my photography group and bought a few rolls of B&W film.

It was quite a different experience as it was my first time with 6x6, and also my first time with B&W film. I like the results, but am thinking about how to justify the cost of a Mamiya 6 or 7. I like the square format, so am leaning to the Mamiya 6, but I'm worried about service and repairs as it's been out of production for a while.

Anyway, here are some samples, with more in my RFF gallery:

Cheers,
Nick

 

[Doug]

Welcome, Nick! Nice shots too... How do you find the Mamiya's handling/focusing for street shooting?

 

[nksyoon]

Thanks Doug. I haven't used a rangefinder for about 20 years, so I've been very careful with focusing, especially bearing in mind reduced DOF compared to my Canon DSLR. Pre-focusing based on the distance/DOF scale is another thing I have to practice coming from autofocus. This slows things down a bit for street photography.

In using the Mamiya 6 for street photography, the only basis for comparison I have is my Canon DSLR - autofocus, no need to wind film, more reliable metering and a louder shutter. The Mamiya does have a quieter shutter and it's 6x6 - no portrait/landscape decision required.

If I were to get a rangefinder primarily for street work, I wouldn't get a Mamiya 6. It's not the most compact/discreet camera around, it has less DOF than 35mm cameras and 120 film is more expensive per shot.

Cheers,
Nick.

 

[Doug]

Do people seem to take notice of your Mamiya? I've been using a Bronica RF645, and it doesn't draw any attention that I've noticed, so I guess it's discreet enough. It's not large, measuring the same as a Leica M with lens + hood except for being 2.5cm taller. Perhaps the dark color makes it look smaller too. I've been using 220 film so it doesn't have to be changed as often. While it's much larger than a Minolta CLE, there's that nice big negative to enjoy too!

Do you think you might choose a medium format RF camera for yourself?

 

[jan normandale]

Hi Nick,

very nice shots were you using the 75 mm lens?

A couple of points to think about, because I went to digital and have come full circle to film again.

A scanned 6x6 transparency has about 3 times more "size" than a digital camera image. Check your scanned image in a photoshop zoom , film is packed with detail. A 6x6 can be cropped to look like a landscape mode if you want , that's the nice thing about a Hasselblad or any other 6x6. No re orienting the camera is necessary.

After shooting with a film camera for a while, you will automatically do most things you describe that the digital camera does now. Think of the images that came out of the 50's & 60's on film. Like riding a bike it all comes back. Also there is the issue of hard copy. As technology changes or CD's deteriorate you will have concerns regarding the images you captured. Ask the Smithsonian about this one or any Museum in Europe. Already digital information is being lost!

Here is an interesting discussion/monologue regarding the practical issues of digital photography. http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803

Also a Mamiya 6RF isn't much larger than some of the digital Nikons and Fuji's I have seen around.

MF/film may not be for you. You may just be more comfortable all digital. I use both and like digital too. Any way if you do decide to " jump in" I have set up a list of Mamiya MF RF users "how many Mamiya 6 & 7 users at RFF" I am sure there is a lot of help available there.

regards, Jan

 

[nksyoon]

Hi Doug, Jan,

Yes, I'm seriously considering a MF RF. Leaning towards a Mamiya 6 because of the 6x6 format. More of a difference from my DLSR's 3:2 format.

But the Mamiya 7, 7II and Bronica RF645 are also possibilities. Robert White in the UK has specials on the Bronica with 65mm for £533, and the Mamiya 7II with 80mm for £1000. Very tempting for the warranty. The 6 has the square format which I'm interested in, and it's more compact, but repairs and parts are a worry.

So far the image quality is amazing. The web versions in my gallery were scanned at 600 dpi, but I've made some scans at 2400dpi and printed them out on my Epson R200 printer - 18cm square images on A4 paper = >700 ppi. The sharpness at this size is superb of course, but the most striking thing is the smoothness of the tones. I don't know if digital B&W conversions can get this good. Certainly not with my lack of skill in PS.

Doug, do you think 645 images lose much in comparison with the 6x6? Also, how difficult was it to adjust to the vertical format of the RF645?

Decisions, decisions.

Cheers,
Nick

 

[Doug]

Doug, do you think 645 images lose much in comparison with the 6x6? Also, how difficult was it to adjust to the vertical format of the RF645?

This is really a personal issue that can be difficult to assess. I'm a little surprised over the hesitation of many about the vertical orientation, and that for some people it's a deal-breaker.

Cameras made for waist-level viewing tend to have square format, as they're usually awkward to view when turned on their sides. And awkward to handle when fitted with an eye-level viewfinder too. Rotating doesn't matter so much for a camera designed for eye-level use.

An obvious way to gain a larger format for a given film width is to lengthen the frame along the film. 6x9cm for instance has the same 2:3 proportions as normal 35, and can fit on the same film size as 6x6. Then, to squeeze more shots on a roll of film, the frame can be shortened to 6x4.5cm, which is essentially "half-frame" 6x9. Of course both these other options end up rectangular. I don't know of any square sizes of sheet film for large format. Why? Maybe most "serious" photographers will choose rectangular when there's no special advantage to square...

While square format is popular for TLR cameras for obvious reasons, and most earlier medium format SLRs, and a lot of box cameras, I think it's more a niche choice rather than mainstream. Rectangular rules. When I have used 6x6 cameras, I've composed the photo to fill the square frame. More often than not, I can't later bring myself to crop it rectangular! Sometimes I can of course, even to narrow pano proportions, but it's like wasting film.

Choosing 6x6 intending to mainly crop to 645 later doesn't seem quite right to me. If forced to it, I'd want etched guidelines in the viewfinder for vertical & horizontal crops. But better to choose 645 then, and get 16 shots rather than 12.

If I wanted to create a series of square prints, as some do, square format negatives would be ideal. Sometimes I'll crop a rectangular image to square, but not often, because I tend to compose to the viewfinder.

Ok, vertical... Very early in my photo experience one of my first cameras was a Petri 1/2 7 half-frame; 24x18mm vertical frame on 35mm film. Later I had an Olympus Pen D2, and I now have a Pen FT SLR, both half-frame and vertical orientation. So vertical to me isn't unusual; I'm used to it. Indeed for my current project of environmental portraits, more often than not my pics are vertical, and a natural vertical orientation is great for this.

To get vertical on other cameras, they need to be turned on their side... I'm guessing those most distressed by the thought of having to turn a vertical camera sideways for horizontal shots must not shoot many vertical pics with their current gear! Ideally, we should find techniques for comfortable shooting with our cameras on their sides, regardless of the film orientation... 🙂

But, it all boils down to what you prefer, or could learn to like, and I'm grateful for the choices.

 

[jan normandale]

Hi Doug, Jan,

Yes, I'm seriously considering a MF RF. Leaning towards a Mamiya 6 because of the 6x6 format. More of a difference from my DLSR's 3:2 format.

But the Mamiya 7, 7II and Bronica RF645 are also possibilities. Robert White in the UK has specials on the Bronica with 65mm for £533, and the Mamiya 7II with 80mm for £1000. Very tempting for the warranty. The 6 has the square format which I'm interested in, and it's more compact, but repairs and parts are a worry.

So far the image quality is amazing. The web versions in my gallery were scanned at 600 dpi, but I've made some scans at 2400dpi and printed them out on my Epson R200 printer - 18cm square images on A4 paper = >700 ppi. The sharpness at this size is superb of course, but the most striking thing is the smoothness of the tones. I don't know if digital B&W conversions can get this good. Certainly not with my lack of skill in PS.

Doug, do you think 645 images lose much in comparison with the 6x6? Also, how difficult was it to adjust to the vertical format of the RF645?

Decisions, decisions.

Cheers,
Nick

Nick, if you want to see a very fresh (todays post at "How Many Mamiya 6 and 7 Users") example of what you can do with a good MF, Stuart has posted a shot of a cyclist and then a blow up. It's better than any written piece to demonstrate what these cameras and film are capable of achieving.

best regards, Jan

 

[nksyoon]

Hi Jan,

In reply to your earlier question, I used all 3 lenses - 50, 75 and 150mm. The 50 and 75 were used most, with the 150 for maybe 5% of the shots.

The 150 is very tricky to focus, and I had to go back and forth a few times, even in good light, before I was confident it was in focus.

Cheers,
Nick.

 

[canonetc]

Nick, I'd say get the 6 for the challenge, larger format/image detail, and that the 6's lens collapses for easy carry. Your concern about cost per image is understandable, but having "fewer" shots encourages more deliberate shooting, while the digital system can promote a "Go ahead, shoot like crazy, there are tons of pixels to waste" way of thinking. RF's (film or digital) are great because they encourage one to become a faster and at the same time more deliberate photographer; you are forced to retain some degree of manual awareness (instead of turning everything over to the machine), and you simply have to get faster at controlling your camera to get a good shot (at least on the street).

Chris
canonetc

 

[photolady]

Nick- I have been following this thread an have to get my two cents in. I just started in digital and the only thing holding me back until now was the 35mm format..I have been using a Mamiya 6 for years now- for street photography and also for landscape- (my grandchildren are a challenge in focusing quickly though). I still love the 6x6 format and am having trouble adapting to the smaller format. I use a Nikon D100 which is wonderful for the ease of autofocus etc but frankly is more heavy and awkward than my M6. I never felt intrusive in NYC using it and most people were not aware that I was taking photos- it is quiet! and pretty small for the large wonderful images. I did spring for the R-D1 because the advantages osf digital are enormous and this camera is just right for 'street' walking-quiet,unobtrusive- everything I have with my 6.
I have never had trouble with service with the 6- there are enough of us out there and Mamiya USA is very responsive to our problems. Also some of the add-ons of the 7 can be used with the 6.
and isn't the 6x6 format wonderful??? But, you DO have to be more deliberate using it-you can't just click away!
So have fun- love your photos by the way..Edied

 

[Lear]

I got my M6MF after using a Nikon F4e, the Mamiya was way smaller. Actually, with the 75mm collapsed, it’s as deep as was my M3 with a DR cron. 2cm taller and 3cm longer. I usually take it around in a small trunck & co. pouch which contains the camera, and 4-5 rolls of film. Looks like any other pouch in the market, not camera gear.

I considered the M7 and RF645, but both where actually larger to carry due to the fixed lens mount. On the mamiya the square is just right, the world just fits nice in there, and I rarely have to crop to rectangular, although some times I find myself cropping about 10% of the square in some way.

Never had problems with light metering, or with advance gears (although in last CLA I asked the tech to tighten it up a little). The 50mm is one hell of a lens; the 150mm is too, but a PITA to focus. After a few years I found out 90% of my pictures where taken with the 75mm so it’s the only one I carry (and only one I have right now).

About going around unnoticed, why? I do like interaction with the people around. Even so its not very hard to go unseen, the picture here was taken of this 2 guys sitting in the table next to me at about 1.3 meters, I was on the minimum focusing distance, had to lean back to manage to focus the guy on the right.

Cheers
Diego K.