I have 2 Mamiya 6's with all three lenses and have owned the Mamiya 7 before as well as other MF SLR systems (Bronica, Mamiya, Hasseblad). I can tell you that the lenses on my Mamiya 6's are sharper than any SLR camera I've ever owned, including a Hasselblad. Rangefinder cameras have no mirror, which means the lens can be put up closer to the film plane, which is a more ideal placement for a lens. Also means less bulk, since there is no mirror, no prism, and no camera built around both. This leads to a light weight camera with super sharp optics. I would recommend both the Mamiya 6 or 7 any day. I also have the Bronica RF645 that I'm tickled to death with too.
I absolutely love my MF rangefinders. I wouldn't give them up for anything. But there are times when I wish I had an SLR system: close focus, telephoto lenses, tight portraiture, exact framing. But those times are rare.
I'm not versed in Mamiya rangefinders, but in response to Steve's comment
a Hasselblad setup can be put together for under $1000 with some intelligent buying, I've not seen a single Mamiya 7 kit go for less than $850, and often times for $1200-1500.
so this 'affording a hasselblad' stuff is nonsense, I would know, I'm a sophomore in college and I have a small 500EL/M kit.
and I would imagine, as the others have said, that the Mamiya 7 is desirable for its weight and reputable lenses.
Last edited by Chris Lange; 11-11-2010 at 06:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
I think it's more about understanding Steve's humor
Thanks for so many great comments!!!
To sum things up to this point, i'm seeing:
1) The Mamiya rangefinder lenses are sharper than the RB67 lenses
2) Portability for the rangefinder is much more convenient
3) the bokeh delivered by the RB67 would be better than the rangefinder
4) Steve has a strange sense of humor
Alot of info to take in, but it gives me something to think about having choose the RB67. Given that i want to do more with landscape/nature photography and portraiture i hope i made the right decision in the RB67 with both Sekor C 180mm and 65mm lenses.
If there's more to the discussion, please add your thoughts!
The Mamiya RFs are much nicer to lug around for landscape photography, but as David Goldfarb said many of us lug much bigger systems around photographing the landscape. Depending on circumstance and my mood I will either take my two Fuji RFs, or a Calumet Cadet 4x5, three lenses and 14 holders, or a Kodak 2D 5x7, one lens and 10 holders.
I think it all comes down to what system is enjoyable to use (all three for me) and do they give you the results you desire. If you enjoy using the RB and like it's results, it is the right choice.
Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
"I don't care about Milwaukee or Chicago." - Yvon LeBlanc
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Don't overlook the mirror in the RB/RZ. It is huge and will play havoc with image quality at slower shutter speeds every time it fires, even on a good tripod. I have had an entire roll ruined because I forgot this fact. One way to overcome this issue is to use mirror lockup and a cable release. This helps a lot!
Oh, and as you've decided on an RB67, if you do use mirror lockup ALWAYS reset it back to normal mode on the lens at the end of a shooting session; otherwise you will be shooting blanks in the next one and won't realise why.
Originally Posted by JJB
You will, of course, forget to do this but only once...
Because I would rather carry a 4x5 camera than a RZ into the field.
Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. I own both the Mamiya 7II and the RZ67. I shoot the 7II 90% of the time in the field. The reason is simple, the 7II is easily carried, the RZ is not. In a small bag, I can carry a body and three lenses. For general, B&W landscape, I prefer the 7II. But, the camera has limitations not found in the RZ. First, it is much more difficult to use polarizers and split ND filters with the 7II. The 7II is terrible at macro or close up--minimum focus distance is 1 meter with the 80mm lens. The lenses on the 7II are excellent--but there is a limited range, 43, 50, 65, 80, 150 and 210. The RZ has a much broader range. With extension tubes, the RZ is an excellent camera for macro work.
If I did more color work, I would probably lean toward the RZ. But, I also agree with BetterSense. If I'm going to carry that much weight, I might as well carry the 4x5.
One big advantage of the 7II, you can use a smaller, lighter tripod than you can with the RZ. So not only do you save weight with the camera, but also with the accompanying gear.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.