Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,706   Posts: 1,548,488   Online: 929
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    12
    I'm sure you can find out elsewhere that the 7+43mm is fantastic (it's a combination I would dearly love to own yet sadly I must pay for my own food...). However, and I quote, "Ken Rockwell is a goober".

    The man himself says that his reviews are effectively for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken seriously. Considering that his business model is ad revenue, everything he writes is with the aim of stirring controversy and getting people to link to him.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    621
    Say what you like about Ken Rockwell, he's one of the more popular photo bloggers, and he bangs the film drum, that cannot be a bad thing.

  3. #23
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    12
    oh, he is highly entertaining, popular and does bang the big-film drum, which is great.

    Just don't base any important (ie purchase) decisions on what he writes for the purpose of drumming up ad revenue.

  4. #24
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Back to Kurt: depending on what your plans are (shooting wise), I'd go ahead and get it. You can easily re-sell it for how much you got it for the begin with most the time. That said, just remember that focusing close is not a M7 strong point, and the f/4.5 doesn't make it really a fast lens either. But once again, depending on what you're doing with it, this might or might not matter. For landscapes, certain city scenes and other extreme wide shots, it's delightful to use and definitely worth getting at some point.
    K.S. Klain

  5. #25
    rkmiec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    athens,georgia.
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    289
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    I own a 7 which was given to me. Frankly, I would class it as one of the worst of the several MF cameras I have owned in the past and own today.
    Please send it to me for proper disposal.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2
    Does anyone ever shoot the 43 without the external viewfinder? They are quite expensive to replace and I fear I may have lost mine...

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    776
    the finders come up on ebay from time to time, usually for $100 - 150. Not cheap per se, but cheaper than buying it new from B&H or something.

    It's hard to know what would be in the shot without the finder...

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by EdSawyer View Post
    the finders come up on ebay from time to time, usually for $100 - 150.
    I hope you are right, Ed, I can use one, too, but new they are $400+ and I've never seen one used in the range you describe, but I admit I haven't been checking fervently...

    I'm toying with the idea of just getting the Voigtlander 21mm in ltm and its companion finder, since I'm already in that system and want the lens to start with.... It would almost be like getting a bonus lens for the cost of the Mamiya finder. Or skip the lens and just get the finder or some other 35mm format finder in 21mm focal length. Obviously there would be some differences in the 35mm vs. 6x7 framing, but that can compensated for, perhaps as accurately as the Mamiya finder is, anyway.

    jlab-yes, I shoot without the finder (though, obviously, I wish otherwise). It is not super-radically wider than the limits of the built-in viewfinder (people go without the 50 finder and just use the edges of the built-in as a rough guide). Sure, not ideal, but it just takes a little thought and trial and error. And it doesn't hurt to make sure critical elements are not on the edge of the frame. But, yeah, a good finder would be better.

  9. #29
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Funny you bring this up since I just forgot my 43mm finder on a hiking trip two weekend ago and had to "guess" my shots. It is fairly tough, but I would just use the the rangefinder view and imagine another 10-15 degrees beyond the square. Worked rather well actually...
    K.S. Klain

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    69
    I rented a 7II with the 43mm for the weekend. It's pretty sharp. Bests my 645's by a significant margin. I may have to trade up.

    Request: If anyone has this combo, would you mind weighing it and giving me the exact weight of the camera and lens?
    I was going to do this but forgot until after I returned the rental, sigh.
    -K

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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