Mamiya 7-II vs. my trusty old Rollei 2.8 Planar TLR

I'm considering moving up to a 6x7 format camera, but I don't want an SLR,
and I don't want anything that can't at least equal the image-quality I'm
accustomed to with my good old Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar TLR; will I be
disappointed with a Mamiya 7-II Rangefinder?

Thanks!
--
Ray ( www.rayspace.com )
-------------------------------------------
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere,
than in any city on earth" - Steve McQueen

From: "Lunaray"

I'm considering moving up to a 6x7 format camera, but I don't want an SLR,
and I don't want anything that can't at least equal the image-quality I'm
accustomed to with my good old Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar TLR; will I be
disappointed with a Mamiya 7-II Rangefinder?

We have two of these and five of the six lenses (all but the 50 mm). It has
two exceptional selling points to me ...

1) It's very light for the size image you get, light enough that I can carry a
body and 4 lenses for landscape and a 35 mm with a 500 f/4, macro and another
lens (either 100-400 IS or 300 f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8 L) in one LowePro pack.
This is ideal for a place like Alaska, where you might see a grizzly bear one
minute and a beautiful landscape the next. It's lighter and more compact than
our 645 system, which is the main reason we got it. I've mountain biked as
much as 55 miles in Denali in one day with this combo (from Polychrome Pass to
Kantishna, over 3 mountain passes).

2) The image quality is superb, absolutely first rate. I especially like the
43 mm lens and the 150 and 210. Dunno about the Rollei, but on the Photodo
ratings the Mamiya 7 lenses got the highest scores of any medium format lenses
I saw, in some cases higher than all but a couple of 35 mm lenses.

There are so many bad points though that I think I should make a list. Just a
few off the top of my head ...

1) The system is really overpriced, especially in the US, due to Mamiya USA's
monopoly and the lack of grey market competition. I saved almost $1,000 on the
43 mm by buying it from Robert White in England, for example.

2) The rangefinder in general is a pain in the ass, like all rangefinders.
Light and handy but a rangefinder.

3) The 210 doesn't couple with any focussing device known to man (including
the built-in rangefinder), so you just guess the distance and hope the barrel
scale is accurate.

4) No macro (I still use the 120 macro on the 645 because of this). There
*is* a close-up option but I haven't seen it in action yet.

5) No long lenses (I still use the 300 f/4 on the 645 because of this). 210
is equivalent roughly to 105 mm or so in 35 mm terms, which is a bit short for
a full featured system in my book.

6) Most of the lens hoods are poorly built and either won't attach easily
(most of them) or won't snap solidly and will fall off (like the 150 mm hood).
It's ridiculous that every $100 Canon lens has a lens hood that fits snugly yet
Mamiya can't supply one on lenses retailing for $800 - 2,500 each.

7) Several of the lens hoods block part of the viewfinder so you can't see the
entire frame. A real no-no to me.

8) Apparently it's more fragile than my other systems ... I use my gear hard
but have never had a failure with 35 mm or 645, yet after 3 years one of the
Mamiya's quit focussing and it cost $300 to get this adjusted. Wimpy.

9) The 150 should be the choice for portraits but it won't focus close enough
for head/shoulder shots.

10) You have to use separate optical finders for the 43 and 210 mm lenses to
frame the shots.

11) The whole dark-slide trip is a nuisance. Other medium format bodies
figured out how to do this automatically, Mamiya should have done the same.

12) The meter is very limited, especially with the wide angle lenses. I
pretty much use a digital spotmeter with it all the time.

Overall we love the big 6x7 cm slides and the image quality is excellent, which
makes up for a lot of other things. But it's definitely a love-hate
relationship with this camera. I'd keep the Rollei unless you *really* need a
light system.

Bill

Thanks Bill,

I originally posted my question to a "Medium Format" Newsgroup and you are
in the 90% agreement category, that I would be hard-pressed to find anything
to compare with my Rollei! Guess I would be wiser to spend my money to have
it completely refurbished; afterall, there isn't that big of a difference
between 6x6 & 6x7! Thanks again for your thoughtful input!

Ray

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Lunaray"

I'm considering moving up to a 6x7 format camera, but I don't want an
SLR,
and I don't want anything that can't at least equal the image-quality I'm
accustomed to with my good old Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar TLR; will I be
disappointed with a Mamiya 7-II Rangefinder?

We have two of these and five of the six lenses (all but the 50 mm). It
has
two exceptional selling points to me ...

1) It's very light for the size image you get, light enough that I can
carry a
body and 4 lenses for landscape and a 35 mm with a 500 f/4, macro and
another
lens (either 100-400 IS or 300 f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8 L) in one LowePro pack.
This is ideal for a place like Alaska, where you might see a grizzly bear
one
minute and a beautiful landscape the next. It's lighter and more compact
than
our 645 system, which is the main reason we got it. I've mountain biked
as
much as 55 miles in Denali in one day with this combo (from Polychrome
Pass to
Kantishna, over 3 mountain passes).

2) The image quality is superb, absolutely first rate. I especially like
the
43 mm lens and the 150 and 210. Dunno about the Rollei, but on the
Photodo
ratings the Mamiya 7 lenses got the highest scores of any medium format
lenses
I saw, in some cases higher than all but a couple of 35 mm lenses.

There are so many bad points though that I think I should make a list.
Just a
few off the top of my head ...

1) The system is really overpriced, especially in the US, due to Mamiya
USA's
monopoly and the lack of grey market competition. I saved almost $1,000
on the
43 mm by buying it from Robert White in England, for example.

2) The rangefinder in general is a pain in the ass, like all
rangefinders.
Light and handy but a rangefinder.

3) The 210 doesn't couple with any focussing device known to man
(including
the built-in rangefinder), so you just guess the distance and hope the
barrel
scale is accurate.

4) No macro (I still use the 120 macro on the 645 because of this).
There
*is* a close-up option but I haven't seen it in action yet.

5) No long lenses (I still use the 300 f/4 on the 645 because of this).
210
is equivalent roughly to 105 mm or so in 35 mm terms, which is a bit short
for
a full featured system in my book.

6) Most of the lens hoods are poorly built and either won't attach easily
(most of them) or won't snap solidly and will fall off (like the 150 mm
hood).
It's ridiculous that every $100 Canon lens has a lens hood that fits
snugly yet
Mamiya can't supply one on lenses retailing for $800 - 2,500 each.

7) Several of the lens hoods block part of the viewfinder so you can't
see the
entire frame. A real no-no to me.

8) Apparently it's more fragile than my other systems ... I use my gear
hard
but have never had a failure with 35 mm or 645, yet after 3 years one of
the
Mamiya's quit focussing and it cost $300 to get this adjusted. Wimpy.

9) The 150 should be the choice for portraits but it won't focus close
enough
for head/shoulder shots.

10) You have to use separate optical finders for the 43 and 210 mm lenses
to
frame the shots.

11) The whole dark-slide trip is a nuisance. Other medium format bodies
figured out how to do this automatically, Mamiya should have done the
same.

12) The meter is very limited, especially with the wide angle lenses. I
pretty much use a digital spotmeter with it all the time.

Overall we love the big 6x7 cm slides and the image quality is excellent,
which
makes up for a lot of other things. But it's definitely a love-hate
relationship with this camera. I'd keep the Rollei unless you *really*
need a
light system.

Bill

I don't read this board very often and just saw yoru message. I totally agree
with what you have already heard but offer you a few other ideas for
consideration:

1) Think about 6x9 where you do have a LOT more real estate and you have an
aspect ratio that is exactly the same as 35mm.

2) Specifically consider the Fuji GS690II or III. Get a used one and try it
out to see if you like it. I find that it handles as well as most 35mm
cameras. I also find the rangefinder to be bright and crisp and accurate. The
optics are also superb, definiotely the equal of the 2,8 Planer,

Happy to share mor ethoughts on this if it is of any interest.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire

1) Think about 6x9 where .... [the] aspect ratio is exactly
the same as 35mm.

I would have thought that to be a liability. 2:3 paper seems only
to come from the drugstore printer -- and they don't even print full
frame. The photographic paper I find in the stores is 4:5 or 5:7
ratio. The printed page is 8.5x11 (or the even weirder DIN A4).
The TV/computer screen is 3:4 (at least for us old fogies).

The origin of most photographic paper and sheet film sizes can
be traced to the size of a standard sheet of window glass (glass
negatives) or the size of a standard sheet of metal (tin types
and Daguerreotypes).

A 2:3 ratio is only popular in 35mm, where it happened by accident
as a doubling of a 18x24 (3:4, like a TV) standard movie frame.
And, coincidentally, 35mm is usually viewed in full frame 2:3 when
it is projected as a slide (just like a movie...). But then,
I think 35mm is only suited for use with Kodachrome.

The neglected 5:7 aspect ratio is remarkably close to the 'Golden
Mean'. Cutting a sheet of 5:7 in half results in two sheets with
the same 5:7 ratio (actually 3.5:5 ~= 4.9:7). Whether the golden
mean shows up by accident or design is a topic of conjecture,
the claims of coffee table art books aside.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

The neglected 5:7 aspect ratio is remarkably close to the 'Golden
Mean'. Cutting a sheet of 5:7 in half results in two sheets with
the same 5:7 ratio (actually 3.5:5 ~= 4.9:7). Whether the golden
mean shows up by accident or design is a topic of conjecture,
the claims of coffee table art books aside.

You got things mixed up here.

The golden mean is approx. 1:1.61803399. 5x7 has a ratio of
1:1.4, 4x5 has a ratio of 1:1.25. 35mm with a ratio of 1:1.5 is
"closer" to the golden mean than any of the regular LF film sizes
(8x10, 10x14, 11x14, 16x20, ...), except for 2x3 which has the
same ratio than 35mm.

What you are refering to is that 5x7 has a ratio close to the
square root of 2 (approx 1.41), just like "weird" DIN A4,
which was designed so that when you cut it into two pieces
you could end up with the next smaller size (DIN A5).

Lars
--
.~. Lars Michael
/V\
/(_)\ http://www.larsmichael.com/
^^ ^^

From: (Ted Harris)

1) Think about 6x9 ... Specifically consider the Fuji
GS690II or III

A couple of acquaintances have these and the optics are excellent, plus the
price is very low compared to the Mamiya 7.

The biggest drawback is you only have one fixed lens though, which is a fatal
flaw to many of us

Bill

wrote

You got things mixed up here.

The golden mean is approx. 1:1.61803399. 5x7 has a ratio of
1:1.4, 4x5 has a ratio of 1:1.25. 35mm with a ratio of 1:1.5 is
"closer" to the golden mean than any of the regular LF film sizes
(8x10, 10x14, 11x14, 16x20, ...), except for 2x3 which has the
same ratio than 35mm.

You are right. Mea culpa.

What you are referring to is that 5x7 has a ratio close to the
square root of 2 (approx 1.41), just like "weird" DIN A4,
which was designed so that when you cut it into two pieces
you could end up with the next smaller size (DIN A5).

I used to know that. I do know that. Getting senile....

As to the "weird", I was thinking of A4's dimensions: 210 x 297mm.

For our American readers (including me): The basis size of
the German (now ISO) paper size system, A0, is defined
as a 1:sqrt(2) rectangle with an area of 1 meter^2.
The short side of an A0 sheet is 1/(fourth root of 2)
meters. Page layout is a joy.... irrational numbers
abound in the page size. And then the type to go on
the page is measured in 1/120th's of an inch. One
needs a ruler divided into halves, thirds and fifths
of an inch and sub-multiples of the fourth root of
two meters.

Then there is tractor feed A4: 210mm x 11".

Yeah, yeah. I know, the 'English' system of inches and
feet doesn't make much sense to a European, being a mix
of base 2 and base 3 and no base 5 to be seen.

But hey, fractional inches, that's pure binary: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ....

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
wrote
You got things mixed up here.
The golden mean is approx. 1:1.61803399. 5x7 has a ratio of
1:1.4, 4x5 has a ratio of 1:1.25. 35mm with a ratio of 1:1.5 is
"closer" to the golden mean than any of the regular LF film sizes
(8x10, 10x14, 11x14, 16x20, ...), except for 2x3 which has the
same ratio than 35mm.

The the ration of the golden mean does not make sense in filmformats,
I've never read that this ratio has been recommended by any author
about composing and designing pictures.

But the 6 x 7 cm is called "Idealformat" in older Linhof literature,
because of it's ration, with negatives measuring 56 x 72 mm (Mamiya
uses 56 x 69,5 mm) having a ratio of 7:9. This is in between 4:5
and 3:4.

What you are referring to is that 5x7 has a ratio close to the
square root of 2 (approx 1.41), just like "weird" DIN A4,
which was designed so that when you cut it into two pieces
you could end up with the next smaller size (DIN A5).

I used to know that. I do know that. Getting senile....

As to the "weird", I was thinking of A4's dimensions: 210 x 297mm.

Well, this is close to 8 x 12" which is a quite often used format
of prints in Europe. And it is of course named 20 x 30 cm but it
is some millimeters larger and does cause some problems with stupid
manufacturers of archive sleeves who think 20 x 30 cm means
200 x 300 mm instead of the true dimensions of 203,2 x 304,8 mm.

Another "weird" format is 30 x 45 cm which is a bit
larger as DIN A3(297 x 420 mm), this is 12 x 18".

A "wired" format for the Europeans is 25 x 38 cm or in other
words 10 x 15", which became popular in the last years because
this is the largest format the Fuji Frontier 300 series can
print.

I do still prefer the 30 x 45 cm prints from a Konica QD 21,
at least as long as I have not enough money to get really big
prints from a Durst Lambda ;-)


--
Helmut Faugel