Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,867   Posts: 1,583,202   Online: 874
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,863
    My comment was also meant to point out that landscape [or other] photography is not limited to Mamiya MF cameras.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    873
    Images
    24
    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.

  3. #23
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Allen Friday View Post
    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.
    For Sirius work, I have my Hasselblad and 4x5s in the car. If I am carry the cameras, which is done with a back pack, I decide before whether the photographs will be taken with the Hasselblad or the 4x5s before I start walking.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  4. #24
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by fmajor View Post
    Thanks for so many great comments!!!

    To sum things up to this point, i'm seeing:

    Steve has a strange sense of humor

    While not untrue, it's more a matter of a strange person with a sense of humor.

    Being one myself, I can spot another a mile away!
    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.

  5. #25
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,965
    Images
    108
    I read a article at German Photo Technic magazine compared to Mamiya to M6 to Hasselblad Planar.
    They had been printed two pages prints and result Hasselblad Planar was the sharpest , than mamiya than M6.

    But they pointed out a very interesting point. They had been taken a giant imperial garden pictures with both cameras in the giant excellent garden and they had been zoomed the positives.

    At the back of the garden , back of the palace , there was a hidden concealed red painted iron work structure.

    Hasselblad Planar had been seen it black ! There was two papers of article duscussing this.

    Mamiya was farwayay weaker at the sharpness side but the structure seen as pure red.

    I visited Leica Expert site www.imx.nl and there were two lenses comparison.
    Summilux and Distagon from 2009.

    Distagon was sharper but Leica was faraway colorful. And Zeiss reds was tends to darker and blacker.

    I saw this at my only camera Rollei 35S Sonnar 40 mm.

    But all common thing of these photographs tends to taken at sunset , dim light.

    I saw the strongest colors at pure light with my Sonnar.

    This could be interest you.

    Umut

  6. #26
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Allen Friday View Post
    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.
    This is a good point, and I understand your point. I find that having two systems (RF & SLR) for the reasons you mentioned above is a good idea but, like you said you take the 7II out 90% of the time. I would think that it would be times when you're out with the 7II that you would find shots where the RZ would benefit. But if you don't have the RZ along it's almost pointless to have it. That's what I always thought was ironic about owning two systems. You almost have to carry both systems at all times or else one has no advantage over the other. There are times (about 10%) when I would love to have close up ability, or precise framing, or faster lenses, or longer lenses. But it doesn't happen that often and I'm not going to invest in a Hasselblad and lug it around for that 10% of the time when I feel I MIGHT need it.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    People say this because the 6's and 7's are relatively small and light. Technically speaking, an SLR or a view camera (any camera with which you see what the lens sees) would be preferable for most landscape shots, as would a component camera with exchangeable magazines and other bits. However, for those traveling relatively long distances by foot to shoot their landscape pictures, the size and weight advantages of the rangefinders often outweigh the compositional and other advantages of the SLRs and view cameras. So, to say it has to do with the type of photography is not necessarily true. It has to do with how one gets to where one is photographing more than it does with the type of photography. I have shot many landscapes with my RZ, as it has many features which help out in landscape situations. I just don't usually go all that far from "home base" (usually the car) to shoot with it. I've hiked with it, and it is doable. However, it takes up a lot of space that could be used for other things, so I only take it on day hikes or overnight hikes, as I don't need to carry a lot of other supplies in these cases.

    As for lens quality, the later model Mamiya 6's and 7's are known to have some of the best, if not the best, medium format optics, from a purely technical point of view. However, all quality medium format cameras have high-quality optics, so unless shooting test charts, the lens quality should be of little concern.

    Personally, I'd say that a Hasselblad or a 645 SLR that uses backs would be the best all-around compact yet full featured landscape camera. The optics are excellent, they are component systems, they are SLRs. and they are relatively compact.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 11-11-2010 at 11:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #28
    whlogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Hendersonville, NC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    512
    Images
    92
    Why reject the Fuji 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9 RF's in this argument? They are also extremly sharp RF cameras for landscape work I submit? "He said, stirring the pot"
    Logan Just for fun , fellas

  9. #29
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Again... different tools for different purposes. It always humors me when people consider there to be a best anything in photography. Creative minds always have and always will rise above all the brandwanking and format inferiority complexes.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    873
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    This is a good point, and I understand your point. I find that having two systems (RF & SLR) for the reasons you mentioned above is a good idea but, like you said you take the 7II out 90% of the time. I would think that it would be times when you're out with the 7II that you would find shots where the RZ would benefit. But if you don't have the RZ along it's almost pointless to have it. That's what I always thought was ironic about owning two systems. You almost have to carry both systems at all times or else one has no advantage over the other. There are times (about 10%) when I would love to have close up ability, or precise framing, or faster lenses, or longer lenses. But it doesn't happen that often and I'm not going to invest in a Hasselblad and lug it around for that 10% of the time when I feel I MIGHT need it.
    Different tools for different jobs. When I shoot MF in the studio, the percentages are reversed. I shoot the RZ 90% of the time and the 7II 10%. I think it just shows that there is no one, perfect camera for every situation.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin