You 2? (Mamiya 6 & 7)

[snausages]

So far I love my recently acquired Mamiya 7.

But it pains me that the fastest lens option for the camera is f4.

And I don't get why Mamiya left it this way.

With it's ridiculously quiet, gentle leaf shutters and its grace in your hands, the camera seems so naturally suited for low, available light photography and yet...there is no lens to fully exploit these fundamental advantages.

I'm gathering that maybe the leaf shutter is why they couldn't/didn't make faster lenses (?), but the P67 has a 90 2.8 leaf shutter. Why can't a leaf shutter lens be a fast lens? Because the shutter within the lens can't cover the diameter of a large aperture fast enough? Well then, just give me f2 at 1/125th!

With the Mamiya 7 you have, arguably, medium format's sharpest, easiest-to-handhold interchangeable lens system, but you must live without the dreaminess and character and flexibility of wide-open shooting on fast lenses.

Would this system not have voided your lust for almost all other MF gear if it had added just an 80 f2 lens to the roster?

Even if this fantasy lens had weighed an extra pound, I know I would have put up with it and carried it as often as possible, and I do believe twice as many people would own this (still terrific) camera if this lens were out there...

 

[Sam N]

I've thought about these cameras and ruled them out for the reason you mention (and the price).

My guess is that the weight gain would be more than just a pound, and it would require more focusing accuracy.

 

[35mmdelux]

The camera mfgs conduct production cost and market analyses and produce what the market will bear. MF lenses are generally slow, especially in 6x7. Fortunately my Makina 6x7 sports a 80/2.8, which is perhaps why I like it.

 

[feenej]

On the plus side, you don't need a fast lens for a bright finder image with a rangefinder.

 

[snausages]

I suppose what I'm really asking is, what was it technically, in the actual engineering, of a fast 6x7, leaf shutter lens that held Mamiya back here?

There are plenty of examples of f2.8 lenses in the 6x6 format. My 1950's Rollei is 2.8, nearly as sharp in the center as Mamiya 7 lenses, and the lens elements would fit easily in the barrel of the M7's 80mm.

And, Sam, I don't know why a camera as large as the M7 should have any trouble offering a RF with enough focus accuracy for a still relatively short 80mm.

Thus I assume it's the leaf shutter design holding it back. But with an electronic shutter, how hard would it have been to have a terraced system, with a lower maximum shutter speed at the wider apertures?

Maybe I'm not getting something. Or maybe the issue really was just cost and perceived demand. Which is sad, because I believe the demand for the entire system would have been greatly increased by one fast lens.

 

[Atom]

Does a f4 in MF have a different depth of field than a similar focal length in 35mm at f4? Perhaps this was a reason. Also the development of small lenses with very sharp glass might have been more cost effective than faster heavier lenses. Maybe someone should contact Mamiya.

 

[enochRoot]

the mamiya lenses are some of the finest lenses ever made. think to what the cost new was of these. if they were F2 and had the same quality...they would weigh a LOT more and would cost exponentially more!

 

[Frank Petronio]

No offense to anyone, I agree their lenses are excellent.... What I wonder about is why did they make the body so cheap?

I had three Mamiya 6s and all three lenses and even the NPC Pola back.... it was a sick set-up... until it started falling apart. I know the 7s are better but still it soured me on all things Mamiya.

 

[Way]

I do love the lenses from the Mamiya 6 & 7. I have the 50mm and 75mm for the M6 and I find that they seem better built than the 80mm for the M7. The 80mm is lighter and feels more plastic-like.
I would love them to be faster but they would be expensive! I can live with f4.

 

[Matus]

I think that including f/2.8 or even f/2.0 lenses for Mamiya 7 would lead to increase of price on several places:
- Lens itself - larger - you need space for the shutter inside the lens! You HAVE to keep 1/500 shutter speed.
- faster lens - maybe different more complicated design = more expensive
- more precise rangefinder with longer base = more expensive

and as Frank has pointed out the bodies are not too well build. If you want to hang large (= heavier) lens on the camera you have to make the body and mount stronger too.

Now - the Mamiyas are not cheap as they are and if the price for the body would go say $1000 up they would get harder to sell.

If you look at the Bessa III that will come out soon you see that the lens is f/3.5 and the rangefinder base rather short. I guess the main reason is to keep the cost down as much as possible (though you may discuss how successful this process was)

 

[snausages]

There is a 90mm f2.8 leaf shutter lens for the Pentax 6x7 series. It is definitely larger than Mamiya's comparable focal length 6x7 lenses, but not by a whopping margin. And it can be had for less than $200 (granted it was much more when new). The P67 lenses are slightly less sharp than the Mamiya's but you almost never hear people complaining about the glass - the majority of the P67's issues manifest in the body.

I realize that something would have had to give - a bit more weight, a bit less sharpness, a bit more money - but I'm still not getting what the true technical limitation is/was.

I agree that Mamiya's achievement with the glass in this series was terrific - I just pine for this one missing piece, and would have gladly taken a bit less sharpness to get it...for instance, do Hasselblad users say their lenses aren't sharp enough?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The rangefinder is a rather short base to accurately focus faster lenses. Mamiya dropped the ball on this camera, I think. They cheaped out on the body by putting in a short base RF, then charged a fortune for it. For the prices these get new, you can get a Hasselblad....same for used which are also expensive.

 

[noah b]

The f/4 doesn't bother me too much. I mainly use my M7 outside anyway. For indoors I like a dslr or the leica. I would even enjoy a f/3.5 lens for the mamiya haha.

 

[enochRoot]

the M6 has a f3.5 lens!

 

[gdi]

The rangefinder is a rather short base to accurately focus faster lenses. Mamiya dropped the ball on this camera, I think. They cheaped out on the body by putting in a short base RF, then charged a fortune for it. For the prices these get new, you can get a Hasselblad....same for used which are also expensive.

I can't see how they dropped the ball on it - yes it is expensive but the results are as good as they get for MF. And the 7 has negative size and resolution, from all I have seen and read, over the Hasselblad. Its definately a better handling camera for many situations.

I have a 7II and never used a 6, but it seems built ok to me - not a heavy duty chunk of metal to be sure. But I admit I have never been one to throw cameras around, and that may put me in the minority on RFF.

But if you need F2.8 or close focus, obviously look elsewhere...

 

[Todd.Hanz]

hmm...never had any issues with f4 myself but of course I don't shoot brick walls with mine 😉

 

[gdi]

hmm...never had any issues with f4 myself but of course I don't shoot brick walls with mine 😉

Todd, your stuff is the best testimonial for the Mamiya I've seen!

 

[snausages]

I fully appreciate what the M7 does, and how well it does it, and it will never prevent its user from making meaningful images, and I have no gripes about its build quality, but I wish I did not have this jealous eye on Hasselblad lenses, or even P67 lenses, because the M7 is such a good hand-held package, and I walked around with it today and had a blast, and I just want it to fulfill all of its potential (so that I don't have to 'look elsewhere') and I want someone to tell me why 2 more stops weren't possible and I kind of like brick walls and, for God's sake, I just want to stop spending money on cameras!

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I fully appreciate what the M7 does, and how well it does it, and it will never prevent its user from making meaningful images, and I have no gripes about its build quality, but I wish I did not have this jealous eye on Hasselblad lenses, or even P67 lenses, because the M7 is such a good hand-held package, and I walked around with it today and had a blast, and I just want it to fulfill all of its potential (so that I don't have to 'look elsewhere') and I want someone to tell me why 2 more stops weren't possible and I kind of like brick walls and, for God's sake, I just want to stop spending money on cameras!

bro,
enjoy it for what it is, a great camera that allows you to make great images. Is it the be all- end all, (IMHO) sadly there's no such thing. personally I hate the format, to me it's too square, but I can still shoot it and enjoy the images it makes.

and thanks gdi 😉

Todd

 

[Doug]

F4 is kinda limiting, even f/3.5 as on the big Fuji, and a MF RF with at least 2.8 or 2.4 would be most welcome. I don't really see that it would cost all that much more to build in a longer RF baseline. Caused Bronica lots of grief.

But I make out ok by using ISO 800 film, at least at common commercial interior light levels.

I surely do appreciate that Pentax has supplied 5 focal lengths from 75 through 165mm at f/2.8 or faster (2.4 for the 105) for P67 system, and 4 equally fast ones 45 to 150 for the P645. RFs should get some speed too...