Hello all,
I wonder if any of you ever tried the Mamiya 7II RF? I am curious about the quality and the versatility when compared to the Leica M range.
How about the optics?
Of course I realise that it is hard to compare 35mm to 6x7 film, but IŽd like to hear about your personal experience.

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), May 27, 2002

Answers

I have the Mamiya 7II with 50, 80 & 150 but don't own any Leica RF (except for a Minilux). So I can't give you user experience in directly comparing the Mamiya and Leica.

The Mamiya is a piece of very fine equipment for 6x7 format. It's surprisingly lightweight and portable, of course not to the same extent of Leica. Despite of its plastic exterior materials, it's very well built, with smooth and quiet oepration as Leica. Egronomics is top-notched, maybe even better than Leica M6 and R8 (I handled both Leica for short while and know the difference).

If you don't mind the slower lens speed, a little bulkier package and the lack of a legendary "metal-feel" of M's, the Mamiya 7II should be your choice of landscape and general street photography, leave alone portrait due to it's lack of close focusing distance. Images from Leica, no matter how good the Leica lenses, are still one or two notches below that of Mamiya - not because of lens quality but the format/size difference. So strictly speaking, it's an apple-to- organge comparison.

I'm gonna buy into Leica M6. So instead of rivalries, I'll say they're complementary.

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), May 27, 2002.

They are definitly not easy beasts to cmapare. But I will say that the times I've used a Mamiya 7, I have liked it very much. Sharp lenses (slow though), good handeling, and a quieter shutter than a M6. It's a camera that I wouldn't mind owning at some point, but have never gotten around to it yet.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), May 27, 2002.

Eric;

The Mamiya 7 and M6 are very similar in use but each makes a very different kind of picture.

Click for the Gallery

There are 3 pictures in the 4th row and one in the top row made with the Mamiya 7...the rest are Leica M&R and a few with the Xpan.

While it handles a lot like the M6 -- the Mamiya 7 is fast, good in the hand, has amazing lenses, makes bigger negs -- I must say its a very different camera by way of the look and feel of the pictures. You can see that for yourself in the gallery.

Its an incredibly tough and reliable piece of gear, the battery seems to be unaffected by cold and lasts a long time. The only complaint, and its a really minor complaint, is the 1 meter close focus limit.

Good luck,

MH

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), May 27, 2002.

I much prefer the Mamiya 7 to a Leica or any 35mm rangefinder. Reasons for this:

1) Significantly larger negative, easier to "read" without a loupe, better large prints;

2) No distracting framelines;

3) True flash sync up to 1/500;

4 Ergonomics, although this is a personal preference.

#1 is the overriding issue for me.

Reasons that one might prefer a 35mm rangefinder:

1) Smaller and maybe a bit lighter;

2) 36 exposures without changing film;

3) Changing lenses is far easier;

4) Motor drive built-in (Hexar RF) or optional (Leica);

5) More films options.

Any differences between the optics (and the Mamiya 7 has excellent optics) are irrelevant given the difference in negative size. It's been my experience that a mediocre medium format lens will give better large prints than any 35mm lens.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 27, 2002.

Eric wrote: "The Mamiya 7 and M6 are very similar in use but each makes a very different kind of picture."

Could you please explain what you mean by that. Thanks.

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), May 27, 2002.

To me the biggest drawback to the Mamiya and other medium-format rangefinders is the shallower DOF which forces me to stop down farther and end up using a tripod...in which case I might as well use my Hasselblad, which is what I do. I owned a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder for a short time and disliked that issue so much that I sold it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 27, 2002.

To me the biggest drawback to the Mamiya and other medium-format rangefinders is the shallower DOF

Interesting comment on a board where people post portraits shot a /f 1.0. :<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 27, 2002.

I've used the Mamiya 6 once, and have a M6. I agree with all the above, with one addition.

Film and processing cost.

I dislike doing it myself, so the cheap route is 35mm.

Of course, if I was really cheap, I wouldn't own a darn Leica.

Cheers,

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), May 27, 2002.

Michael,
I am impressed by your portfolio, especially the part about the former USSR. With respect for the people and their misery you were able to show what their life must be about, with some ups, but obviously mostly downs. The child in the orphanage says it all: what a wonderful picture of a truly sad sad scene....
Thank you for sharing!
Jeff,
I think I agree with all your points. However, do you feel the maximum shutter speed of 1/500 in the Mamiya to be a limitation?
Jay,
How does DOF at a 35mm/2 (35mm) compare to a 80mm/4 (6x7) set at the same distance?


-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), May 27, 2002.

Our son-in law is addicted to 35mm. Our daughter uses a Miamia 7 and another 120 roll-film camera. Our granddaughter continually has to mediate the lively discussions between the two. She's the smart one - - she uses a third-hand M4 that I gave her two years ago along with an ancient 35 chron. < grin >

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 27, 2002.

The DOF of a given focal length lens at a given f stop is the same regardless of format. What changes based on the format size is the angle of coverage. To get approximately the same coverage on 6x7cm as a 28mm does on a 24x36mm format, you need a 65mm lens, which has the same DOF as a 65mm lens on 35mm body...much less than a 28mm.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 27, 2002.

Jay:

That was a wry, but well justified, comment. Of course I haven't had the problem with the 65 mm on my Bronica 645 or on my 6 x 7 Mamiya. We probably photograph different subjects. No, I seldom use a tripod [except with 21 mm and wider on 35 mm; these old eyes can't produce a flat horizion otherwise ;<)].

Art

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 27, 2002.

I own and use both systems on a fairly regular basis. There is one key difference between them beyond the obvious film size etc. The Leica camera is at its' best with the very fast lenses that are available for it. For me it is a low light machine which the Mamiya 7II with its' slow lenses is not. The 7IIs sync. speed of 1/500th is a wonderful asset for daylight fill flash. I use ND filters to overcome the 1/500th top shutter speed in bright sunlight. The two are very easy systems to travel with, and I often use them together for a urban type travel coverage when I don't anticipate a need for a long lens ( although, in a pinch i've shot a long lens subject with the Mamiya 150mm, and was able to crop WAY in because the neg is so BIG. )

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 27, 2002.

Jeff... do you feel the maximum shutter speed of 1/500 in the Mamiya to be a limitation?

Only if you want to shoot open in bright sun. With Tri-X, I can shoot at 1/500 at f11. I don't shoot with anything faster than Tri- X during the daytime, so it's not an issue. Of course, there can be times when it would be nice to open up a few stops, but I don't :-)

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 27, 2002.

I hate it when I forget to close the italics.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 27, 2002.

"The DOF of a given focal length lens at a given f stop is the same regardless of format."

That is not so, although this topic does result in lengthy and fruitless arguments. I believe DOF is specified for a given standard print size, so in fact the DOF of a given lens in MF, for instance, is considered to be equivalent to that of the lens with the same angle of view in any other format. So DOF(65, 6x7) = DOF(28, 135), to use your example. Counterintuitive, but apparently true.

It makes sense if you consider that publication size doesn't change with the negative format, so the DOF is measured in terms of viewer perception of the print, not the CoC on the negative itself.

That's my understanding, anyway.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 28, 2002.

I feel that the Mamiya7 handles better in my hands the M6 (as its bigger and has a proper hand grip and rubbery bits. The lenses though very light are positive and smooth, but dont have the quality feel and heft of leica. I prefer the shutter release of the m6 though, the mamiya7 button feels squidgy. Changing film on the mamiya though is a real pain in the butt.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 28, 2002.

I own and use the Mamiya 7II. The critcism of slow lens is surprising from the users above. Camera shake DECREASES with the larger format and is much less noticiable in big enlargements. Plus, with the larger format, handling and leaf shutters you can handhold at lower speeds. In practice f4 on the Mamiya is the same as f2 on the Leica. Remember also the glass is about the same lightwise, it is the larger negative that equates to f4.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), May 28, 2002.

The difference between the Mamiya 6 and 7/7II is that the 6 is 6x6 square format, while the 7/7II is 6x7. The 6 is quicker in that no change in camera orientation required for vertical/horizontal shots. The Mamiyas are great cameras that have proved themselves to be reliable workhorses, and the lenses are outstanding.

If you're worried about handholding, using a monopod can help significantly, and still be easy to tote around. There are several great sites featuring Mamiya 6/7 photos -- just search in Google.

-- R.J. (rfox@aarp.org), May 28, 2002.

I handhold the Mamiya 7 quite a bit. I don't find it an issue, especially given the body ergonomics.

Faces, Handheld Mamiya 7/80mm lens, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 28, 2002.

"Remember also the glass is about the same lightwise, it is the larger negative that equates to f4."

Bob, can you please explain? My IQ seems to have dropped about 70 points this a.m.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 28, 2002.

Has anyone mentioned the Mamiya 7II's exposure metering is not thru the lens (but makes little difference as the focal lengths available are not that vast)

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 28, 2002.

Intersting thread, considering I was just debating today is I should trade in my Leica M7 for the Mamiya. I find that my M6 is all I will ever need in 35, so why not medium format for a change

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), May 28, 2002.

i own a two leica M's and have used the mamiya 7II. If you do not mind a non interchangable lens the fuji GW690 (normal lens) or GSW 690 ( moderate wide angle) is to me a better option than the mamiya. it is far less expesive, the optics are world class, and the 6x9 negative gives you many more options for cropping and enlarging than a 6x7. I have even cropped for 12" x36" panoramics that will stand up to any ones scrutiny.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 28, 2002.

I owned a 690 before the Mamiya 7. It has a good lens, a nice big negative, and a good price. However, the finder is significantly inferior to the Mamiya's, a real problem for me, lots of distortion, it's a pain for long exposures, the shutter is incredibly loud, the lens hood has to be pulled out to set the aperture, it's not very comfortable for handholding, etc etc etc. In the end, I realized I bought it solely for the price, but the ergonomics leave a lot to be desired and it wasn't worth the savings. For me, this is the real killer for a camera. It is one of the few cameras I've bought and sold before it died.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 28, 2002.

Ditto Jeff Spirer with one additional point, the Fuji has a rather cheap shutter built into the lens which requires complete replacement after 1000 rolls which is why the camera has a roll counter on it,s underside.

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), May 28, 2002.