Zeiss Ikon vs Mamiya 7II

[Grego]

I used to own a Mamiya 7II system. I'm thinking of moving to the Ikon and the 35mm world. What, and how much of it, am I giving up for a smaller, handier camera. The Mamiya lenses were very good.
Thank'ee
Greg

 

[dazedgonebye]

Ok, I'll be the first one with the obvious answer. "One heck of a lot of negative...."

 

[back alley]

night and day.

say goodbye to fine grained delta 3200 prints.

 

[telenous]

But say hello to indoor, low light photos 😀

 

[ghost]

low light and running through lots of shots. if you can give that up, the big neg rules.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

you'll give up negative real estate and all that comes with it, you'll gain faster lenses and the 35mm asthetic.

they are different systems, both with positives and negatives, it depends on your needs.

Todd

 

[Bryce]

Corvette vs. Kenworth in a race from the quarry to the jobsite...
Which wins depends on how many rocks you need to transport...

 

[Avotius]

I used to have a mamiya 6 which I must say was built a hell of a lot better then the 7ii, and I sold it off to move to 35mm rangefinders because I still thought it was a peice of junk. But yeah, the lenses are sharp as a tack, I got 50x50 inch prints here to vouch for that, but in the end, the mamiya body was a pos and the light meter was as random as a slinky. In my opinion, its more then worth it to sell it.

 

[Abbazz]

I used to own a Mamiya 7II system. I'm thinking of moving to the Ikon and the 35mm world. What, and how much of it, am I giving up for a smaller, handier camera. The Mamiya lenses were very good.
Thank'ee
Greg

Switch to Super Ikonta, you'll get the Zeiss name and the huge negative size at the same time 😀

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[RObert Budding]

I shoot 35mm, medium format, and large format. They each shine in different situations.

 

[Turtle]

Have aread of some of my ranting twds the end of "Why Leica". It ended up being "why 35mm RF" as there were references to the bigger negs in Mamiya 7s etc. The whole point of top end RFs is the great quality for 35mm. Nobody is trying to pretend (apart from very silly Leicaphiles) that 35mm challenges MF for sheer image quality. The big BUT is that the smaller lighter gear, easier use of longer lenses, faster lenses, more reliable RF mechanism available with some 35mmRFs opens as many doors as are closed when trading down on neg area.

The Z1 and Mamiya 7 are very different cameras really. If you do a lot of landscapes and static work definetley stick ith the Mamiya 7. If you want to do street work where you travel light, cover lots of ground and are unencumbered by gear, go Z1.

If you take a 'moment' type shot on 35mm and it is a great shot, is anyone going to care that "it would have been better on 645/6x7? With steet images some grain just does not seem to be a bad thing like it can be for skies or smooth clouds in landscapes.

Why are you thinking of changing and what do YOU hope to be getting. Then it will be easier to help you decide.

Be under no illusion, great Zm or Leica lenses or not, a Mamiya 7 trounces the 35mm fomat for technical quality just as the smaller cameras trounce the bigger for portability and some other issues.

Personally looking at HCB or Salgado..or many other's work, I did not find myself thinking 'why not a bigger format'. Landscapes are often different and I use LF for that as even 6x7 can be marginal for larger prints.....

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

they are different tools for different needs ... if you need compact, obviously go 35mm, if your photography needs the larger real estate, stick with M7II.

In the end, even a high grain 35mm photo is better than no photo at all 😉

 

[rogue_designer]

horses for courses... decide what/how you want to shoot first - then pick the right tool.

 

[Nachkebia]

I don`t know how can 35mm has better low light though, you gain more with low noise film than with 2 stop faster glass, no?

 

[telenous]

I don`t know how can 35mm has better low light though, you gain more with low noise film than with 2 stop faster glass, no?

The best I could do with my Bronica rf645 was f4 and ISO1600 (that's how much it allowed in the dial) at 1/8. That's equivalent (in terms of low light ability, not image quality) to f2, ISO400, 1/8, which was not really much. Compare this with f1.4, ISO1600, 1/8s with a 35mm rangefinder. The difference is critical when light is really scarce.

 

[Nachkebia]

Erm, okey fair enough, how about f/2.8 plannar on rollei with 1600?

 

[Finder]

I have both a Hexar AF and a Mamiya 6. I got the Hexar because it was more compact. I still use the Mimiya for 90% of my work. The Hexar is rarely used. But I am a medium-format kind of guy.

I would try both systems and see which gives you what you want. I don't think one is a substitute for the other.

 

[v3cron]

Erm, okey fair enough, how about f/2.8 plannar on rollei with 1600?

i use a rollei 2.8 for low light, and it does a great job. in 35mm though, not only can you grab more light, but you also get a little more dof at a given aperture.

 

[jano]

Erm, okey fair enough, how about f/2.8 plannar on rollei with 1600?

!!!thgil wol ni taht gnisucof yrT

(..xelfiellor gnimussA)

 

[Nachkebia]

!!!thgil wol ni taht gnisucof yrT

(..xelfiellor gnimussA)

Pardon me?