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.
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.
Originally Posted by Allen Friday
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 10:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"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)
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
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
Originally Posted by brian steinberger
The Fuji's are great cameras. A bit bulkier than the 7II, but very sharp lenses. For landscape work, in particular, the 6x9 might be a good idea because of the wider aspect ratio. Downside, no interchangeable lenses (and the exposure counter sounds like a gun shot when you press the shutter.)
Originally Posted by whlogan
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
LOL!!! I'm not sure if i "broke" the code, i'm at least aware there *is* a code!
Again, thanks everyone for your insights and leading questions.
To help clarify my intentions, i do plan on lugging the camera (in the mountains) for my landscape attempts. A 7-15lb camera plus another 15lbs for a days outing is pocket lint compared to a typical winter multi-day outing load-out which is usually in the 70lb +/- range and more if i'm doing any technical climbing.
Also, i didn't include other brands b/c i own a Mamiya RB67 and so see related comments.
Mamiya, Hasselblad, Fuji, etc...
Here are some test charts results:
All of your work is Sirius (not sure if this is a serious comment though!).
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.