jmooney
Guy with a camera
Hi All,
I'm thinking of swapping my Leica M6 for a Mamiya 7. The obvoius gain is in negative real estate but what are the downsides? Has anyone made the switch? How did it go for you? My main use for the M6 is my everyday carry camera to shoot whatever may come, sort of my notebook of my life. It takes me about a month to go through a 24 exp roll of 135.
I pretty much only shoot with a 35 on my M so I was going to go with the 65mm lens and add the 150 in case I need something to get in close.
I'd appreciate any insight anyone can give.
Take care,
Jim
I'm thinking of swapping my Leica M6 for a Mamiya 7. The obvoius gain is in negative real estate but what are the downsides? Has anyone made the switch? How did it go for you? My main use for the M6 is my everyday carry camera to shoot whatever may come, sort of my notebook of my life. It takes me about a month to go through a 24 exp roll of 135.
I pretty much only shoot with a 35 on my M so I was going to go with the 65mm lens and add the 150 in case I need something to get in close.
I'd appreciate any insight anyone can give.
Take care,
Jim
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Swap away.
Apples and oranges.
You mentioned the difference yourself.
The Mamiya weighs a ton and has a bigger negative.
What sort of insight are you looking for?
Apples and oranges.
You mentioned the difference yourself.
The Mamiya weighs a ton and has a bigger negative.
What sort of insight are you looking for?
pevelg
Well-known
I tried making the switch a couple months ago. Here is why I didn't:
1. Can't use Kodachrome (unless you want all shots panoramic)
2. Film expensive to process (compared by picture/cost ratio)
3. Can't view in projector unless you want spend time mounting.
4. I just love my M6TTL too dearly and I couldn't part with her. As I could not afford both, I sadly said goodbye to the Mamiya 7 and sold her.
Instead, I got a Hassy system for 1/2 the price. Not as comfortable as the Mamiya and smaller negative (by 1cm, not big diff), but allows me to own a MF and my Leica and be able to get those gorgeous MF pictures.
1. Can't use Kodachrome (unless you want all shots panoramic)
2. Film expensive to process (compared by picture/cost ratio)
3. Can't view in projector unless you want spend time mounting.
4. I just love my M6TTL too dearly and I couldn't part with her. As I could not afford both, I sadly said goodbye to the Mamiya 7 and sold her.
Instead, I got a Hassy system for 1/2 the price. Not as comfortable as the Mamiya and smaller negative (by 1cm, not big diff), but allows me to own a MF and my Leica and be able to get those gorgeous MF pictures.
gdi
Veteran
As Nasby said there significant differences. The Mamiya is bigger but doesn't weigh that much really. With the 65mm, I would compare it too a big AF SLR. I know some people here are very weak and the weight of an SLR does permanant damage, so YMMV.
The lenses are pretty slow compared to most M lenses - 4.0-4.5. You can't focus close enough for head shots( 65 is around 1 meter and the 150 is 1.8). Fastest shutter speed is 1/500. When its loaded and ready to go, it is easy and quick to use, with a good (gotta get use to it) non-TTL meter. But loading film is slower - you get 10 shots per roll - and changing lenses is significantly slower. If you are going to scan. you need to allocate at least $2000 for a MF film scanner (new price) to get the most of the benefit of the neg size.
The quality of the negative is, obviously, no comparison. Also you can do Panos by cropping or using the adapter with 35mm fim. A lot of people don't see the point, but I find it a huge advantage to use 35mm film when I want or need to- drop off at the 1hr, film not available in 120, etc.
I use an M system much more frequently.
The lenses are pretty slow compared to most M lenses - 4.0-4.5. You can't focus close enough for head shots( 65 is around 1 meter and the 150 is 1.8). Fastest shutter speed is 1/500. When its loaded and ready to go, it is easy and quick to use, with a good (gotta get use to it) non-TTL meter. But loading film is slower - you get 10 shots per roll - and changing lenses is significantly slower. If you are going to scan. you need to allocate at least $2000 for a MF film scanner (new price) to get the most of the benefit of the neg size.
The quality of the negative is, obviously, no comparison. Also you can do Panos by cropping or using the adapter with 35mm fim. A lot of people don't see the point, but I find it a huge advantage to use 35mm film when I want or need to- drop off at the 1hr, film not available in 120, etc.
I use an M system much more frequently.
JRG
Well-known
As far as angle of view goes, if you like a 35mm lens on 135 format, you might want to consider the 80mm lens on the Mamiya.
You've got to take aspect ratio into account here --- 1:1.5 vs. 1:1.25. If you're accustomed to cropping 135 negatives to fit 8x10 paper (or, doing the equivalent with a .jpg, etc.), then it makes sense to use the short sides of the negatives for comparison (24 vs. 56 or so). because your cropping leaves , in effect, a 24x30 frame. On that basis, the Mamiya 65mm has the angle of view of a 28mm on 135, while the Mamiya 80mm lens has the angle of view of a 34mm lens on 135 format.
You can also use the long sides of the frames (36 vs. 70 or so) to make comparisons. On that basis, the Mamiya 65mm lens matches up with a 34mm lens on 135, and the Mamiya 80mm lens matches up with a 42mm lens on 135 format. But using that basis is tantamount to comparing a 24x36 frame with a 46x70mm frame --- i.e., cropping the 6x7 negative to 1:1.5 aspect ratio.
You can also use the diagonals for comparison, but that will give answers very similar to using the long sides of the two frames.
So, the Mamiya 65 corresponds to something in the 28mm-34mm range, depending on how you adjust for aspect ratio, while the 80mm lens corresponds to something in the 34mm--42mm range (on a 135 camera). If you're going to use the entire 56x70 frame (i.e., 1:1.25 aspect), lean toward the low end of those ranges; if you'll tend to crop toward 135 aspect ratio, lean toward the long end.
You've got to take aspect ratio into account here --- 1:1.5 vs. 1:1.25. If you're accustomed to cropping 135 negatives to fit 8x10 paper (or, doing the equivalent with a .jpg, etc.), then it makes sense to use the short sides of the negatives for comparison (24 vs. 56 or so). because your cropping leaves , in effect, a 24x30 frame. On that basis, the Mamiya 65mm has the angle of view of a 28mm on 135, while the Mamiya 80mm lens has the angle of view of a 34mm lens on 135 format.
You can also use the long sides of the frames (36 vs. 70 or so) to make comparisons. On that basis, the Mamiya 65mm lens matches up with a 34mm lens on 135, and the Mamiya 80mm lens matches up with a 42mm lens on 135 format. But using that basis is tantamount to comparing a 24x36 frame with a 46x70mm frame --- i.e., cropping the 6x7 negative to 1:1.5 aspect ratio.
You can also use the diagonals for comparison, but that will give answers very similar to using the long sides of the two frames.
So, the Mamiya 65 corresponds to something in the 28mm-34mm range, depending on how you adjust for aspect ratio, while the 80mm lens corresponds to something in the 34mm--42mm range (on a 135 camera). If you're going to use the entire 56x70 frame (i.e., 1:1.25 aspect), lean toward the low end of those ranges; if you'll tend to crop toward 135 aspect ratio, lean toward the long end.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It all depends on the ISO and aperture/shutter speed you are comfortable with shooting at. If you find you can shoot Portra 400NC at 1/125 @ f/5.6 at the low end, then the Mamiya 7 is a practical camera for you. If you need more speed, then keep the Leica.
I think the Mamiya 7 is mostly an outdoor landscape photography camera.... It wouldn't be my first choice for portraits or low light work.
Also, the Mamiya is very nice, sharp as anything made, etc. but the build quality doesn't compare with any Leica.
I think the Mamiya 7 is mostly an outdoor landscape photography camera.... It wouldn't be my first choice for portraits or low light work.
Also, the Mamiya is very nice, sharp as anything made, etc. but the build quality doesn't compare with any Leica.
gdi
Veteran
This an idea I have been considering - the Mamiya system is very expensive and I think the Hasselblad would be good compromise with lower cost and close quality. I'm just not using my 7II as much as I need to....
JCT
Established
I have an M3 and recently purchased an M7II + 80mm -- as others have noted, they are very, very different. In my case, I purchased the M7II to have a walk-around and easy-to-travel with MF setup. I shoot mostly B&W and develop my own film, so the 10 shot/roll with the M7II is not a drawback to me.
For some reason, I am more measured/contemplative with the M7II -- more cognizant of composition. Almost like a junior version of my 4x5. And the negatives are just stellar. It's relative simplicity reminds me of my M3.
While I might end up using the M3 a bit less, I could never imagine selling it, we were "born" in the same year and it is an old, comfortable friend.
I should add that I have a Hassy 503CW, much more of a studio camera (for me) -- and the style of shooting is *much* different than the M7II. As my eyes have aged I have gained a true appreciation for the combination of rangefinder focusing and superlative glass and to me, both the M7II and the Leica just nails that description.
Good luck with your choice.
JT
For some reason, I am more measured/contemplative with the M7II -- more cognizant of composition. Almost like a junior version of my 4x5. And the negatives are just stellar. It's relative simplicity reminds me of my M3.
While I might end up using the M3 a bit less, I could never imagine selling it, we were "born" in the same year and it is an old, comfortable friend.
I should add that I have a Hassy 503CW, much more of a studio camera (for me) -- and the style of shooting is *much* different than the M7II. As my eyes have aged I have gained a true appreciation for the combination of rangefinder focusing and superlative glass and to me, both the M7II and the Leica just nails that description.
Good luck with your choice.
JT
peter_n
Veteran
aizan
Veteran
do it. processing one roll of film every week instead of every month would keep your juices flowing.
you could also wait for the fuji gf670, which should be an ideal vade mecum.
you could also wait for the fuji gf670, which should be an ideal vade mecum.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Consider other medium format cameras?
Consider other medium format cameras?
You might consider something like a Fuji Rangefinder -- their lenses are also amongst the sharpest ever, like the Mamiya, but simplified. And a Rollei 2.8 D, E, or F would be a a great "walk around" camera that might not be as cutting sharp as the Mamiya but they are sharp and also have a wonderful bokeh. The older D and E models are relative bargains.
Certain Hasselblad lenses are as sharp as the Mamiya, the 60 and 100 come to mind.
Consider other medium format cameras?
You might consider something like a Fuji Rangefinder -- their lenses are also amongst the sharpest ever, like the Mamiya, but simplified. And a Rollei 2.8 D, E, or F would be a a great "walk around" camera that might not be as cutting sharp as the Mamiya but they are sharp and also have a wonderful bokeh. The older D and E models are relative bargains.
Certain Hasselblad lenses are as sharp as the Mamiya, the 60 and 100 come to mind.
Flat Earth
Member
I did have a Mamiya 7 and a Leica M7 at the same time. I have sold them both now since I have gone completely digital now (DMR and M8). When I did have them both, I used the Mamiya whenever I went outdoors. If I had to choose only one, I would pick the Mamiya.
Cons to the Mamiya.
Slow lenses and narrow DOF. Lenses are very good wide open but if you are shooting indoors, without flash, you may not be very happy.
Bulky camera relative to Leica. A Mamiya with lens weighs about the same as a Leica but is much larger in volume.
Plasticy feel to the camera and lens.
Pros to the Mamiya.
It has a better finder than M6 or M7, although it is somewhat dimmer. Never noticed flareout. If you wear glasses, you will see all the framelines with great ease.
Image quality. Size matters.
Cheap. I think I sold the Mamiya in user shape and 80 for something like a grand.
Durable. I have dropped the Mamiya several times and never had to adjust the rangefinder.
One thing to consider about image quality is that an M8 or DMR gives me better quality than scanned 6x7.
Jonathan
Cons to the Mamiya.
Slow lenses and narrow DOF. Lenses are very good wide open but if you are shooting indoors, without flash, you may not be very happy.
Bulky camera relative to Leica. A Mamiya with lens weighs about the same as a Leica but is much larger in volume.
Plasticy feel to the camera and lens.
Pros to the Mamiya.
It has a better finder than M6 or M7, although it is somewhat dimmer. Never noticed flareout. If you wear glasses, you will see all the framelines with great ease.
Image quality. Size matters.
Cheap. I think I sold the Mamiya in user shape and 80 for something like a grand.
Durable. I have dropped the Mamiya several times and never had to adjust the rangefinder.
One thing to consider about image quality is that an M8 or DMR gives me better quality than scanned 6x7.
Jonathan
gdi
Veteran
Here, (as I mentioned above) a lot depends on the scanner and technique used. I use a middle of the road - derided as "Prosumer" scanner
- and my Mamiya 7II scans are far superior to the M8 for large prints. I haven't used a DMR, but haven't seen anything would lead me to believe it would be better than the 6x7. Of course you have to pay a fair amount for the scanning hardware to bring out most of the Mamiya quality!
Frank Petronio
Well-known
If your 6x7 scans from a Mamiya 7 aren't significantly better than a M8/DMR then perhaps it's time to get some better scans!
lic4
Well-known
Working with the Mamiya changed my shooting style greatly. I ended up getting rid of it b/c of the style of photography I prefer (speed of use, discreet camera, spontaneity, low light) is suited to using a Leica (or other 35mm RF). I still use medium format, but I'm less obsessed with image resolution and sharpness these days as I am with the actual mood and atmosphere of the photograph. I'm very keen on 35mm.
Flat Earth
Member
I never did invest heavily in MF scanning hardware since the Mamiya 7 was the only MF camera I ever used. I used an Epson flatbed, which did primary duty as an LF (4x5) scanner. Maybe other scanners would be better.
JOnathan
JOnathan
qruyk12
Established
Great camera choice. I currently shoot a 7II with 80 and 43mm lenses. My only advice is try and find a 7II instead of a 7. The viewfinder is much improved. Email me if you need some tips on where to find a new at a very good price.
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
Hi Jim ,why not a bronica rf645?smaller,lighter than a mamiya 7,has a better viewfinder than my m6 titan and lenses and small flash are outstanding!!!unfortunately I don't own a scanner to show to you the photos I've taken when my son is born (ilford 3200 handheld).consider that you can take 16 exp per 120 film(32 per 220 film) so you have much shots than the mamiya but a big negative.
I've used high sensitive film with 135mm but with 6x4.5 is simply another world!
I hope I helped you
ciao
I've used high sensitive film with 135mm but with 6x4.5 is simply another world!
I hope I helped you
ciao
Zugzwang
Member
I agree with Debusti Paolo. The RF645 is a great camera. Not much larger than a leica. Bigger negatives. Outstanding lenses.Built solid like a leica. A nice compromise between the Mamiya 7 and leica.
craygc
Well-known
I use both 'M's and Mamiya 7II's and you've certainly been given a lot of useful advice so far. The Mamiya is a fantastic camera (I have 2) but I certainly wouldn't consider replacing my 'M's with it. To me, these are such different systems which I find I use for different subjects with different techniques.
It shouldn't be about replacement bur rather augmentation....
It shouldn't be about replacement bur rather augmentation....