Mamiya 7

Camera

Lenses

Accessories

Reports

July 1996

Rfinder

Mamiya's New Approach to Medium Format

Joel S. Tlumak

What Mamiya did when it decided to manufacture a medium format rangefinder camera system was to put considerable financial as well as photographic faith in a method of taking photographs that is quite limited, quite expensive and thus highly questionable for many pros and non-pros.

You can compare the Mamiya 6 and the Mamiya 7 to a Leica with considerable justification. When I picked up a Mamiya 7 and started shooting with it I felt indeed like I felt when I first started using M-series Leicas - I felt I was using one of the greatest cameras of all time.

But when Leicas grow in size to a 6x6 or 6x7 format, that growth entails further limitations - limitations, however, that are far outweighed by the increase in film size, by the superb craftsmanship and by the fast and easy handling of the Mamiya 7.

There is no question here that in 35mm photography rangefinder cameras, especially Leicas, are the optimal means of reaching the heights of picture taking, whether you're a pro, a highly serious photographer with considerable experience or even a relatively new amateur.

And I can say the same thing for the Mamiya 7 in medium format. I haven't used the Mamiya 6 (I'll deal with the MF designation later) but since the cameras are virtually the same except for format with lenses of equally high quality I assume what I say applies basically to the Mamiya 6 as well).

Everyone I know who shoots mainly with Leicas also has a single lens reflex for those moments out of range of a Leica rangefinder's capabilities - specifically, for example, when a photographer needs a macro lens or telephoto lens beyond 135mm. However, for what a Leica M-series camera does, nothing beats it.

In the area of medium format, almost everyone I know who has a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7 is a pro who also has a more comprehensive medium format system - one, for example, that takes many more interchangeable lenses than the Mamiya rangefinder system and one that may have interchangeable backs, among other more comprehensive system attributes. However, for what the rangefinder Mamiya systems do, nothing beats them.

The big question Mamiya faces economically with its medium format rangefinders is a crucial one of survival, what with the high price of its two medium format rangefinder systems.

For example, will the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7 attract someone who is buying his or her first medium format camera system and be limited to three (in the case of the Mamiya 6) or four (in the case of the Mamiya 7) interchangeable lenses?

Or, since pros in general already have a medium format system, often one made by Mamiya, such as the RB67, RZ67 or one of its 645 SLRs, why would they spend several thousands of dollars on a limited rangefinder system that would duplicate in many respects a more comprehensive medium format SLR they already have?

Focusing more accurately and quicker; shutter responds smoothly, quietly
As I learned in the one week I used the Mamiya 7, buying a Mamiya 7 definitely would not be duplicating a medium format SLR system. I know preference for rangefinder focusing is indeed a limited preference, but I cannot conceive of a photographer who normally uses a medium format SLR telling me that when trying out a Mamiya 7 (or a Mamiya 6) he or she could focus more accurately or quicker with a medium format SLR.

In a dark room, where I first used the Mamiya 7, I focused with the large bright rangefinder with such ease I thought I was viewing the split image with a loop. And when I snapped the shutter, it was obvious that no medium format SLR shutter and shutter release could respond so smoothly, so quickly and so quietly. (The shutters of the Mamiya 6 and 7 are between the lens shutters, not in the cameras; they are electronically controlled and each lens has its own shutter.)

I used two lenses, the 65mm f/4.0 and the 150mm f/4.5, the equivalent in 35mm format to a 32mm lens and a 71mm lens, respectively. I would have liked to have tested Mamiya's equivalent to a 21mm wide angle lens in 35mm photography - the 43mm f/4.5 - but it wasn't available.

With the 65mm lens you compose with the entire 6x7 viewfinder; when you mount the 150mm lens, you have a smaller frameline in the middle of the viewfinder - just as you would with 50mm, 75mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses on a Leica M6. That smaller 150mm frameline, however, was more than sufficient for adequate framing. And for parallax correction all the framelines move as you focus. (There is also a frameline for the normal 80mm lens, but with the 43mm lens you have to use an auxiliary viewfinder - again as you would for a 21mm lens on a 35mm M-series Leica.)

Now I have heard reservations about the Mamiya 7: For example, that its telephoto lens is too short (a 180mm lens would have been preferred by several photographers I talked to); that its lenses are too slow, especially the 80mm f/4.0 normal lens; and that some photographers have trouble or would have trouble shooting verticals with the Mamiya 7.

(All medium format cameras with interchangeable lenses have at least an f/2.8 normal lens; Hasselblad even has a 110mm f/2.0 lens and Pentax has an f/2.8 165mm telephoto for its Pentax 67.)

The reason there are no lenses longer than the 150mm telephoto is that a longer telephoto would have required Mamiya to provide a longer base rangefinder and increase the size of the camera - and the size (which cannot be separated from the unique design) of the Mamiya 7 (as well as the Mamiya 6) is as important to the distinction of this medium format rangefinder system as its remarkable rangefinder, superb shutter and small and lightweight lenses.

I have to ask a different question: Does a rangefinder photographer who could appreciate the easy handling of the Mamiya 7's uniquely designed compact body really need anything more than the 35mm equivalent of a 71mm lens? If the general pro usage of Leica rangefinder cameras is any indication, the 35mm equivalent of a 71mm lens should be no barrier - especially for environmental portraits where rangefinder cameras excel.

(Photographers shooting portraits with Hasselblads, for example, quite often use that camera's 120mm and 150mm lenses. And many users of Leica M-series cameras stay away from telephoto lenses altogether, sometimes not even owning (much less using) Leica's 90mm and 135mm lenses. For me, who considers a 50mm normal lens a short telephoto in 35mm photography, the ideal medium telephoto would be Leica's 75mm f/1.4 lens, which however is exorbitantly expensive and for that reason usually not within most Leica users' lens repertoire.)

Shooting the Mamiya 7 in low light, successful response to one reservation
I fell in love with the 65mm f/4.0 lens. When I shoot in 35mm, I often shoot with either a 28mm or 35mm lens. If I had to choose one lens to shoot with, I would prefer a lens between those two focal lengths - or precisely what the Mamiya 65mm gave me (the equivalent of a 32mm lens for 35mm format). At shutter speeds between 1/30th to 1/500th of a second I got beautifully sharp photos.

However, responding to one reservation from several Leica users that Mamiya 7 lenses were too slow, I used the 65mm f/4.0 lens in extremely low light, just as I would with a Leica; with ISO 400 film and with shutter speeds as slow as 1/8th of a second, I got photos without any noticeable depreciation in sharpness.

Fortunately I am able to handhold cameras at extremely low shutter speeds, witness the jazz club color photo included with this issue, shot with a 35mm camera at 1/4th of a second at f/2.8, and that ability makes my lenses that much faster. Since that may not be the case with many photographers, I would say that the unique compact design of the Mamiya 7, along with the extremely responsive electronic shutter, give most photographers the ability to at least handhold the Mamiya 7 at 1/15th of a second with excellent results. And I think the likelihood of stretching that ability with this medium format rangefinder to 1/8th of a second is fairly good.

The small size (2 1/2 inches) and light weight of the lens were obviously big factors in my ability to shoot at such slow speeds with a medium format camera - as was the light but sturdy camera body with its extremely comfortable right handed grip. I carried the camera around for seven days as if it was a 35mm camera without any discomfort but with the reward of substantially larger transparencies.

I did similar slow shutter speed shooting with the 150mm telephoto lens, which is an inch bigger (lenses of similar focal length, for example, for the Pentax 67 or Hasselblad are huge by comparison). As expected, I couldn't hold the telephoto lens as steady as I could the 65mm lens, but even here 1/8th of a second produced reasonably sharp photos. For optimum handheld results with the 150mm lens, I would stick to no less than 1/15 of a second shutter speed. Obviously faster shutter speeds ensure sharp photos.

Where the difference in size between the two lenses made a difference was when I shot at 1/4th and 1/2 of a second. I got reasonably sharp photos a good part of the time with 1/4th of a second with the 65mm lens; I didn't get such results with the 150mm lens.

I know photographers who use medium format do not shoot as if they were using a 35mm camera at a maximum aperture on a 50mm f/1.4 lens. However, with 400 film I could basically match some of the low light ability of a Leica with its fast lenses - since 400 film with a 6x7 format and extremely sharp lenses means you don't have to blow up a negative or transparency as much as you would a 35mm frame for a similar size enlargement. (And I could have pushed the 400 Ektachrome to 800 without much loss - at least as far as my tastes are concerned.)

I compared shots I took with both the 65mm and 150mm lenses (at shutter speeds from 1/30th to 1/500th of a second) with slides I took years ago with a first generation 50mm Summicron f/2 on a Leica M4-P, slides that were razor sharp. And the Mamiya's medium format slides matched those Summicron slides for sharpness.

Photographers shoot faster with Mamiya 7 than they could with a Leica M6
As to how the lenses for the Mamiya 6 and 7 compare to lenses of other medium format cameras, such as Hasselblad and Bronica lenses, for example, lenses which I haven't used, I turn to a comparison by Practical Photography in its June 1993 issue of the Hasselblad Classic (and its 80mm f/2.8 Planar), the Bronica SQ-Ai (and its 80mm f/2.8 PS Zenzanon) and the Mamiya 6 (with its 75mm f/3.5 normal lens).

The Mamiya 6's 75mm f/3.5 normal lens, it reported, "gave an excellent account of itself right into the corners of the frame, rivaling the best of the cameras tested here."

As for shooting vertically, that's a problem for some photographers whether they use a 35mm camera or a 6x7 medium format camera - and the reason why many pros prefer or would prefer the Mamiya 6 with its 6x6 format to the Mamiya 7. I know of proposals to develop a grip to solve the verticals problem but there is nothing beyond the concept stage.

I believe the Mamiya 7 would be much more attractive if the normal lenses had an f/2.8 rather than an f/4.0 maximum aperture, even though the lens would be bigger. However, if I could afford a Mamiya 7 system, given a choice of lenses, I would not include a normal lens in my Mamiya 7 outfit. For my work, the 65mm and 150mm lenses would cover my medium format needs - actually cover more than half of my photographic needs. (The possibility of a superwide lens such as the 43mm f/4.5, however, would be an alluring prospect, especially since I am considering buying a 21mm lens for my 35mm work.)

And when I would need fast lenses, I would use 35mm.

When I joined the internet email Leica Users Group, one photographer, before he cancelled his subscription, notified Leica users that he sold his Leica M-series cameras to buy a Mamiya 7. That choice was not applauded, to say the least. But if that choice left the photographer without very fast Leica lenses, there are plenty inexpensive rangefinder cameras with excellent fast but non-interchangeable lenses that could more than adequately supplement that medium format preference - and, of course, there are screwmount Leicas and a wide variety of fast Leica, Canon and Russian lenses.

While the Mamiya 7 cannot match Leica rangefinder lenses for speed or for the number of focal lengths available, it can certainly match or outdo Leica rangefinders for operational speed. The aperture priority automation on the Mamiya 7 camera, along with its superb rangefinder and fast reacting shutter, make the Mamiya 7 a faster shooting camera than a Leica M6.

I recall when one of the popular photo magazines proposed that Leica add some form of exposure automation to its Leica M-series cameras. The M6, for example, has an exposure meter but no exposure automation, and it is fully operational if the battery dies and the meter doesn't work. A Leica user would still have the full range of speeds of its mechanical shutter, which apparently is what Leica users prefer.

However, the M6 could also have shutter priority automation without jeopardizing full mechanical shutter operation. That, by the way, is how Konica was able to turn out automated SLRs that were still fully operational mechanically when batteries died. Aperture-priority automation, however, is another question.

The Mamiya 7 has an exposure lock and exposure compensation. I personally hate exposure compensation on a camera with fully manual exposure capability. What I did was switch to manual when I had to increase or decrease the Mamiya 7's meter reading. However, on many occasions I did use the exposure lock, and I applaud Mamiya for that feature.

Mamiya leads the 6x7 parade; how long with the Mamiya 6 last?
One of the problems with any medium format camera is the loading of film - a problem some systems solve with interchangeable backs that can thus be pre-loaded. Since with the Mamiya 7 you get only 10 exposures with 120 film (20 exposures with 220 film), I had to change film often. Fortunately, Mamiya has made it a snap to change film spools as spool locks snap open and snap shut at a flick of a switch, so to speak.

Not surprisingly there are no film backs and no Polaroid backs because the Mamiya 7 is a fast reacting, compactly designed medium format field camera and I used it strictly as such. However, it is also a studio camera. I don't use flash or other lights but as other reviews have indicated, the Mamiya 7 is as remarkable with artificial lighting in the studio as it is without artificial lighting in the field.

Since the Mamiya medium format rangefinders have between the lens shutters, removing a lens in the middle of a roll would expose the film if there were no preventive mechanism. You cannot remove a lens without locking in a dark slide to protect the film. And you cannot shoot until you unlock the dark slide. Both functions are a snap.

As this review makes very clear, the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7 were made for non-traditional as well as traditional medium format purposes - and in many ways they are better instruments than some of the more glamorous medium format SLRs, including Mamiya's RB and RZ SLRs which are considered medium format professional workhorses and have been Mamiya's bread and butter, financially and prestige-wise. It's obvious that the high quality of RB and RZ lenses is responsible for the high quality of Mamiya rangefinder lenses.

I don't know how long Mamiya will continue making its 6x6 rangefinder, as there has been speculation that Mamiya would drop the Mamiya 6 and 6MF, and such speculation is obviously based in part on the extra lens available for the Mamiya 7, the ultra-wide 43mm f/4.5 (equivalent to a 21mm lens in 35mm format). Dale Wilson, in his review of the Mamiya 7 in Photo Digest, a Canadian publication, reported that Mamiya's rangefinder ultrawide lens is virtually distortion free with no flare and "an excellent environmental lens" which "should appeal to a broad range of photographers, landscape, fashion, wedding, architecture and photojournalism."

I don't know whether a 6x7 negative or transparency would give you noticeably sharper enlargements than a 6x6 negative or transparency, although the extra width (or length) of 6x7, no matter how minor, would seem to be an advantage. However, Ernst Wildi in his book "Medium Format Advantage," claims photo magazines and photographers apparently see no difference in the quality of enlargements from 6x45, 6x6 or 6x7 formats. I find that claim difficult to believe, especially between enlargements of 6x45 and 6x7 negatives or transparencies. Nonetheless, the 6x6 format is still a strong favorite among many photographers in the U.S., in part because of the huge popularity of the Hasselblad, and I would expect there would be even stronger 6x6 allegiance in Europe where Rollei SLRs, in addition to the Hasselblad, are popular among pros.

I have, however, been surprised at how popular the Pentax 67 has been become among pros and serious photographers throughout the world. And Mamiya with its RB and RZ SLR series, with their rotating backs, has been the major proponent of the 6x7 format. The RB, in fact, was the first 6x7 SLR.

Mamiya's decision to make a high quality medium format rangefinder for limited use is a bold gamble, as I have said before. But so far it appears to be a successful one, although I could envision marketing people making a survey of the feasibility of medium format rangefinders telling Mamiya not to take such a gamble.

I say that because I have heard over the years unfavorable comments about Leica M-series rangefinders from professional photographers who rely for their living on 35mm SLRs. Specifically, many 35mm SLR photographers do not see any advantage in the rangefinder focusing of a Leica. This does not surprise me, as a rangefinder preference is quite selective. At the same time, there also appears to be a marketing reaction today against oversized, noisy 35mm SLRs. The success of the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7, I believe, is based on the fact that they epitomize the essence of rangefinder photography - quiet, quick and compactly designed equipment, something not common in the medium format world.

Medium format rangefinders before the Mamiya 6 & 7: Koni-Omegas and Mamiya Press cameras
The Mamiya 7 exists today primarily because of Henry Froehlich, who heads up Mamiya America Corporation. Froehlich is not a lover of the 6x6 format. As a rangefinder adherent who imported Konica equipment in the 1960s, he liked the concept of the Mamiya 6 rangefinder that Mamiya was developing, he explained, but in his view Mamiya was just one centimeter off. Froehlich had been involved in the 60's in reviving the original Omega 120 (made by Simon Omega of enlarger fame during the mid 40's) by having Konica make a successor model called the 6x7 Koni-Omega with interchangeable backs and lenses. When Konica found the medium format field too limited, Froehlich convinced Mamiya to produce the Koni-Omega for Berkey Marketing, and the camera was renamed the Rapid-Omega.

Koni-Omegas and Rapid-Omegas were and still are excellent cameras. Lief Ericksenn in his book, "Medium Format Photography," called the Koni-Omegas "wonderful" medium format rangefinders (he had used one professionally). "The cameras never faltered and, boy, were they quick."

Mamiya itself has a history of medium format rangefinders with its various Mamiya Press cameras. Ivor Matanle, in his "Classic Cameras," called the Mamiya Press "an underrated and unfashionable camera that provides back movements and a coupled rangefinder, and has a range of high-contrast lenses available for it from 50mm to 250mm." The last version of Mamiya Press cameras, the Universal, was a popular professional rangefinder because it took Graflok backs, including a Polaroid back.

Those Mamiya Press rangefinders, the Koni-Omegas and the Rapid-Omegas, all used of course, are the inexpensive means today for photographers to get into medium format rangefinder photography. At swap meet I have played with Koni-Omegas, Rapid-Omegas and Mamiya 23s and they are attractive alternatives to a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7. In the "A Cheapskate's Guide to Medium Format" in the December 1995 issue of Popular Photography Jason Schneider said the Omegas "make great knock-around field and street cameras."

However, in real world photography, there is a world of difference between those old medium format rangefinders and the Mamiya 7 that I used. The major value of the Mamiya 7 is two fold: the design and capability to make 35mm photographers comfortable with medium format and the design and capability to make medium format photographers more comfortable shooting medium format in the field. And that design and capability makes for the easy handling and quick and quiet shooting that those old medium format rangefinder cameras cannot match. And for many photographers it would be difficult to match the price as well.

Speaking of medium format versatility in the field, I remember photojournalists using Mamiya 330 interchangeable lens TLRs, specifically someone I used to work with - and I recall that Diane Arbus also used a Mamiya 330 for much of her work. Imagine Diane Arbus today with a Mamiya 7! To use a cliche of the day, that would be awesome - or would it? I don't think Arbus would have done any better regardless of what camera she used. Today that kind of photography is done strictly with 35mm; and that kind of "street" photography is exactly one of the areas where the Mamiya 7 fits like a glove.

The only real problem with the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7, of course, is its extremely high price tag. At Gasser's in San Francisco, where I rented the Mamiya 7, I was told the Mamiya 7 is in great demand as a rental camera, but Gasser's does not have a Mamiya 6 or a Mamiya 6MF for rental. The MF stands for multi-format as this 6x6 camera has the option to shoot in the 6x45 format and create 24x65mm panoramic images on 35mm film with a 35mm Panoramic Adapter that the Mamiya 7 can also use. And that latter is an exciting prospect if what Bob Shell of Shutterbug did in 1990 with panoramic adapters for Mamiya's RB and RZ cameras is any indication.

Images Shutterbug published in January 1991 taken with the 35mm panoramic adapter and RZ's 37mm f/4.5 fisheye "do not look like fisheye shots," he wrote, "they resemble shots taken with special purpose panoramic cameras."

While Mamiya America is heavily pushing the Mamiya 7, I think it is missing the boat by not also pushing the Mamiya 6 and 6MF. This was the first time I have used the 6x7 format. The medium format I have used the most is 6x6 with Rollei TLRs, Mamiya 330s and Yashica TLRs, and I am very comfortable with that format, as are many photographers. I am not adverse to 6x7, as at one point in my life I had put a down payment on a Pentax 67. I think there is room for both formats - and to be able to shoot in either format with such a superbly crafted camera as the Mamiya 6, 6MF or Mamiya 7 would be a boon for rangefinder photography.

I would like to add in conclusion that although my Fuji 645S is a smaller camera than the Mamiya 7, it cannot compare in any way to the Mamiya 7. The Fuji's rangefinder is shamed by the Mamiya's, as is the Fuji's 60mm fixed lens. And the larger Mamiya is much easier to handle and maneuver. Fuji also has its 645W, discontinued but still available used. It does have a 45mm lens, but in the 6x45 format is equivalent to a 28mm lens, not a 21mm lens, in 35mm format and it doesn't have a rangefinder.