Mamiya 7ii vs Pentax 67ii (just the lenses)

rwreich

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
344
Location
Greensboro, NC
Format
Multi Format
Seems like an epic showdown between two beloved cameras...

On the Pentax side, you have sturdy metal construction, lenses that open to f/2.8 (or 2.5 in the case of the 105mm), TTL metering, & SLR focusing.

On the Mamiya side, you have lightweight body materials, leaf-shutters that sync with flash at all speeds, less vibration for slower shutters, & rangefinder focusing.

So... Let's pretend that a photog is comfortable with rangefinders and SLRs. Let's pretend that a photog is fine carrying weight (I already backpack with an RB67 and a Pentax 645, at the same time). Let's also pretend that a photog uses a handheld incident meter and wouldn't be bothered by the in-camera meter.

What it comes down to, then, is lens character and capability. For the sake of argument, just compare the Pentax 105mm and the Mamiya 80mm.

The 80 is slower, but can be handheld at slower speeds. The 105 has more character, but only syncs with flash at 1/30.

Of course, there are other lenses with other trade-offs in both systems. I'm not really asking which one should I buy... Just hoping for a discussion about some things I might have missed.

Your thoughts?
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
The P67 obviously has a way bigger selection of lenses. I trend toward longer focal lengths, while rangefinder cameras seem much more at home with wider angles; rangefinder systems allows a better optical engineering option without resorting to retrofocus ("reverse-telelphoto" design due to a mirror in-between). But the M7 doesn't even offer a lens in the "normal" range. You jump all the way from 80 to 150. Ouch. I hear relative sharpness discussed a lot, when comparing these cameras. But most P67 lenses are PLENTY sharp if used intelligently, including the wides. Weight difference is obviously substantial. But then, having somewhat bigger lenses allows more blades in the shutters, so The "bokeh" of certain P67 lenses is excellent, and seems to me significantly better than M7 equivalents. There are also few leaf shutter lenses available for the Pentax if one simply must resort to flash. This is a debate I've long held with myself. It would be nice to have both systems. But I simply can't see myself working with a rangefinder system, and the Pentax is way more affordable. I ran into a very clean M7ii at a fair price, but chose instead to spend a substantially lesser sum on
a P67 300EDIF lens, which is truly the cat's meow of all medium format telephotos, an incredible optic if you have a serious enough tripod to handle it. But it can also be shot semi-handheld, resting on a car roof or fencepost, rifle-style, at higher shutter speeds. I even use a Nikon body on it at times. Another of my favorite P67 lenses is the 75/4.5, or if you can afford it, the brighter 75/2.8. Making actual prints from the negatives, I find the "look" preferable to what the M7 does. The sharpness is really format limited, not limited by the sharpness of the optic itself in either case. I like the hard infinity stop on the regular series of Pentax lenses, allowing very quick usage for distant scenes. The 300 EDIF is an exception to this, and can focus slightly past the infinity mark , probably due to its popular supplementary usage in astrophotography for non-visual wavelengths.
 
OP
OP

rwreich

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
344
Location
Greensboro, NC
Format
Multi Format
Very interesting, Drew. I'm not at all familiar with the 300mm for the P67. The P67 definitely has more variety and that's multiplied by the ability to couple the lenses to the Pentax 645 system.

On the wide end, 80mm and below, it seems that the distortion of the Mamiya's lenses is much less pronounced.

I've been in my darkroom for about 20 hours this week, printing negs from my RB67 for a client. My longest lens for the RB is 250mm, and I wonder if I'd ever need something longer in this format...

Still, thanks for your thoughts!
 

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,429
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
FWIW because I have no experience with the M7, but lots with the P67... Many years ago, I did a straight on challenge of my P67 lenses against similar focal length Zeiss lenses for my Hassy; same subject, lighting, etc. The view varied somewhat, of course, but overall I found the Pentax lenses to be as sharp and defining as the Zeiss lenses at the print sizes that I normally print to (largest at about 11x14.) Perhaps, if one were to make a 24x30 or larger then, maybe, some slight difference would be apparent. Bottom line for me, though...I was perfectly happy with the P67 results and felt I could shoot with confidence; using careful technique, as Drew said.

To my mind, the P67 system simply provides more flexibility vs the M7 system. It does weigh more...a lot more!...but lighter than my 8x10 outfit! So, ya makes your choices and get out and shoot.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
I once had a 55 for the P67. There was no barrel distortion, but quite a bit of illumination falloff. Extremely sharp. But it was just too wide for my
taste. Took only a handful of shots with it, though one of them certainly hit pay dirt. The 75, however, has little falloff and seems quite versatile to me. I carry one or two P67 bodies in a shoulder bag during rainy days, with a Ries tripod over my shoulder, or put them in a carry-on for vacations
with my wife. For backpacking trips, I prefer a 4x5 system, even with 6x9 roll film backs. It's actually no heavier than a 6x7 system, even less if one
factors in two P67 bodies necessary for switching between both color and black and white shooting, and the presence of tilt/shift movements is helpful. The only distinct advantage to the M7 is that it is the lightest thing around with interchangeable lenses. As I drift into my 70's in just a few more years, the thought of a 70lb pack in the high country to match those numbers isn't especially appealing. But I'm more inclined to con some younger friend into carrying some of the food weight than giving up gear I am accustomed to. Day hikes don't worry me. I'm still fine with even 8x10 there. I'm really just seriously returning to med format. I shot almost exclusively sheet film for over thirty years, and loaned my 67 to my brother until he passed away. He had a couple of wonderful SL66 kits but preferred the more spontaneous ergonomics and focus of the P67. As far as the
reputation of P67 lenses go, I suspect that people who poo-poo them due to their relatively modest price have never actually used this system.
Some of the early Takumars were so-so; but the late lenses are generally superb optically as well as solid and durable mechanically.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
Split the difference and get an RZ67. Then you can have the longer lenses and they will have leaf shutters. Plus you get the advantage of interchangeable backs.

Seriously, you can't really compare a Mamiya 7 with a Pentax 67. The Mamiya 7 is a lightweight travel camera which is great for shooting hand held. The Pentax 67 is more of a system camera that works better on a tripod with a larger selection of lenses. I'd get the camera that better served my needs. If you want lenses with character than buy a large format camera and stick a Dagor, Heliar or Petzval on it.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
I might be able to afford a 6x9 Fuji "Texas Leica", but the M7 system is a bit of a stretch. Talked to a fellow the other day who has a clean M6, but I'd
rather have something that makes the most of 120 film size with respect to degree of enlargement, and I had to be honest about it still holding pretty good value. There are also tempting old 6x9 street options from Bessa etc with more character to the lens than these new clinically sharp M7 ones,
not to say extreme sharpness doesn't have its value when you want that. But I don't care much for the busy out-of-focus rendering of the M7 lenses.
If you want to argue, this can be settled quite easily. Just give me a working sample of the Mamiya system and I promise to give a completely unbiased report comparing it to my Pentax 6x7. Throw in some free Ektar and Acros film while you're at it. My addiction to film is the reason I can't
afford another camera right now.
 
OP
OP

rwreich

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
344
Location
Greensboro, NC
Format
Multi Format

I already have an RB67 and I love it. No need to split the difference! It really was 't a "which should I buy" kind of thread, anyway. I was just interested in discussing some of the finer points.

I have plenty of character lenses on my snapchat app;-) The point about asking about lens character is not specifically about Dagor, Heliar or Petzval lenses, and it wasn't meant to imply that I'm "seeking" swirly renderings! Character is a much broader term, in my opinion.

I think that I'm interested in an M7ii + 80mm because I already have an RB67... But that's also why I'm interested in the P67!

Thanks for responding!
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,007
Format
8x10 Format
Think about the speed of certain Pentax lenses: 105/2.4, 75/2.8, 165/2.8 etc. It does allow better focus, shallower depth of field (selective focus) when you need it, and ability to handhold shots. My wife and have got up to the top of Maui to the Haleakala Crater on numerous occasions where
the wind was not only so fierce as to turn a view camera into a kite, but too strong for even ordinary tripod work. But I've gotten needle-sharp handheld shots even with the 165 up there (preferably resting on the car roof or a rock or railing rather than purely handheld). Given a slow fine
grained film like ACROS and the density of a red or orange filter, one needs a fairly wide maximum aperture just to pull it off. Not RB67 territory.
 

mweintraub

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
1,730
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Medium Format
Alan Gales said:
Yeah, you two can have a great argument!

I used to own a Mamiya RZ67 and my buddy a Pentax 6x7. We'd argue all the time about which was the better camera. This was always in fun of course.
Click to expand...

I also have the RZ67 which, for now, I like better than my newer to me P6x7. I'm trying to love the Pentax and want to get a better/brighter focus screen.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format

If you already own an RB then I would get the Mamiya 7. My friend and I used to argue for fun about the RZ versus Pentax 6x7 but they have a lot in common in the way that you shoot them. Mostly on a tripod?

Petzvels can be swirly or not. Heliars and Dagors are not swirly and each give their own look. My Kodak Commercial Ektar gives another look. There are soft focus lenses that give another look still. You are correct in that "Character" is a very broad term. It's just when you look at large format lenses there are so many different types compared to medium format.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
mweintraub said:
I also have the RZ67 which, for now, I like better than my newer to me P6x7. I'm trying to love the Pentax and want to get a better/brighter focus screen.
Click to expand...

Bright screens can be expensive but in my opinion worth it. I took a Hasselblad 500/cm in on trade. It came with a Beattie Intenscreen in addition to the original screen. The Beattie was a huge improvement shooting inside.

I very recently bought a Mamiya C220. I added a 105mm F/3.5 DS lens. For my tired eyes the screen just isn't quite bright enough indoors so I bought a later C220 F with the brighter screen. The C220 F screen turned out to be fine for me.

Ya gotta see to shoot.
 

Poisson Du Jour

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
The Pentax 105mm is a very ordinary, very pedestrian tele lens. What if you angled for the SMC Pentax 67 75mm f2.8AL relative to the Mamiya 80mm?

The onboard meter of the 67ii is fine, but it would not be enough to sway me off metering everything with an L758D. The 67II has its own reliability problems in the long-term.

There are two leaf shutter lenses in the P67 stable which can sync up to 1/500 (90mm and 165mm).
 
OP
OP

rwreich

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
344
Location
Greensboro, NC
Format
Multi Format

Drew Wiley, I'm right with you about the selective focus when you need it. On the point about the visit to the crater and how it's not RB territory, I think it could go two ways. First, when I use my RB on a tripod, I use very steady video legs with a spreader and weigh it down with my pack. The head is a 75mm video head with a full-size plate attached to the RB. I'd think it'd be sturdy enough as long as I'm able to keep my own feet on the ground, but I've never been there, so... On the other hand, that seems like perfect M7ii territory where you can rely on the leaf shutter to cause even less vibration. That's kinda the trade-off with these systems. For every stop faster in aperture, the leaf-shutter is at least one or maybe two stops more stable to hold.


Alan Gales: I always use the RB67 on a monopod at the very least, or a great video tripod when I really need it locked down. I don't know how this plays out in real life, but I kinda think of the M7ii as a way to get 6x7 negs in a day-pack. I could do that with the P67, and it would be okay, but I'd have to believe that the lenses would be that much better to justify the weight/bulk.

One of my favorite lenses of all time has an amazing signature: the 135mm f/2.8 Series E lens for the Nikon F-mount. I'm always impressed with just how sharp the sharps are, and how beautiful the oof areas are. I really want to try large-format, but I'm afraid that I'd have to spend too much money to get what I think I want, maybe?


Poisson: I have never heard anyone talk about the 105 as pedestrian, but that doesn't mean it might not seem that way to you. I don't know that I've ever seen something from the 75 f/2.8 in print and thought it was remarkable. Mostly, I'm not sure I could identify the lens just from its character. I'm definitely going to do some thinking about that lens.

Regarding the metering, I never trust the internal meters without taking an incident reading just to verify my own intuition.

I've read about the leaf-shuttered lenses for the P67, or at least I remember knowing that they exhisted. Aren't there extra steps to go through in order to get them to work in that way?

Thanks, everyone for contributing - I'm fascinated by your ideas!
 

Poisson Du Jour

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital


An incident reading will not be a match for an onboard meter, especially if that meter is one of the matrix/evaluative/3D which accounts for high and low values and measures them, rather than assumes all values of the scene are average (as a straight incident reading does).

Yes, employing either of the P67 leaf shutter lenses is procedural, but only if you are actually using the lenses in leaf shutter mode; the 90mm and 165mm are great short and medium tele lenses in their own right with LS disengaged. But hook up a flash for high speed sync and camera-side vs leaf shutter side sync values must be set, and with the 165mm, no mirror lock-up or multiexposure is possible (either/both is OK with the 90mm).

The 105mm was a common starter kit lens with the P6x7 / P67 bodies, and many photographers cut their teeth on just that lens and nothing else. Remember there are many excellent P67 lenses and the relative rarities like the 75AL (only a few were manufactured concurrent with the release of the Pentax 67II).

What you see in print, on-screen and whatever is not the same as a physical print that gets people talking, eyes popping and wallets opening! The merits of posting an image made with the P67 75mm AL here (or anywhere) is doubtful given the myriad screen settings in the population; the best example is to view the prints in my (physical!) gallery (I'm down here, in Australia...).
If you can get a 75AL, hang on to it as they have been observed to be increasing in value (avg. is $1,200; two recently sold for $1,400 (EX+) and $1,740 mint-NIB).
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
rwreich said:
I really want to try large-format, but I'm afraid that I'd have to spend too much money to get what I think I want, maybe?
Click to expand...

It all depends. What most people don't realize is that 4x5 is usually cheaper than medium format to get into. I don't know what you want. I've seen usable monorails go as cheap as $50. Nice used field cameras are usually around $700 to start but lenses are cheaper than medium format lenses. You can easily buy a nice 210 lens for $150 with accurate shutter. You can buy used film holders as low as $5 a piece.

You can actually get into 8x10 cheap too. Get an old wooden tailboard camera for $500 and a 300mm normal lens for $300. Decent used film holders will cost you $60 or $70. B&W is reasonable but color film will cost you an arm and a leg.

I own a used Wehman 8x10 field camera which cost me $1,500. I shoot b&w. When I want to shoot color I use a 4x5 reduction back. If I won the lottery I would shoot 8x10 color.

I started with 35mm back in 1982. I bought my first medium format camera when digital brought the prices down on used film cameras. I then got into 4x5 and finally 8x10. Large format to me is the ultimate if you love film. Camera movements are a blast! It's not for everyone but you got to try it.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format

Hmmm! Poisson you are opening up a can of worms here. I love it!

Personally, I prefer an incident meter to an old reflective meter in a camera but to each their own. Actually, I prefer my Pentax digital spotmeter which is of course reflective but to only one degree. I do agree with you about Matrix metering though. I've shot digital Nikons and now a Fujifilm X100s. Matrix metering is unbelievably accurate.
 

hsteeves

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
64
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
I can use and see the effects of filters with a Pentax, can't with the Mamiya - especially a polarizer.
 

Poisson Du Jour

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
Alan Gales said:
Actually, I prefer my Pentax digital spotmeter which is of course reflective but to only one degree.
Click to expand...

Nudge, wink! You've got one of the best spot meters you can have if it is measuring 1° — that means there's skint chance of overlap.
What else do you need? A can of worms??
 

Dismayed

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
438
Location
Boston
Format
Med. Format RF
hsteeves said:
I can use and see the effects of filters with a Pentax, can't with the Mamiya - especially a polarizer.
Click to expand...

There actually is a Mamiya 7 polarizer, and it's easy to see the effect. Graduated ND filters, on the other hand, are a bit of a challenge, but manageable if you use Lee's system to estimate placement.
 

Attachments

  • $_1.JPG
    16.6 KB · Views: 136
OP
OP

rwreich

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
344
Location
Greensboro, NC
Format
Multi Format
So much to comment on!

Metering: I have an incident meter, a Pentax Spotmeter V (analog), and I have been using both, but here's the rub - I like to photograph people in all kinds of light, whether it be contrasty or backlit - whatever. I get better results in my dark room when I print for skin-tones and faces rather than the whole scene. An incident meter less intrusive than a spotmeter pointed at someone's face, in my opinion. Okay. Can of worms

The 75mm AL: I had no idea they were so expensive! That's likely to be a dealbreaker for me, unfortunately. I'm just not willing to pay that much for a lens at the moment. I'm sure it's very good, but for that kind of quality, I'll just haul the RB67 with my 65mm K/L, 127mm K/L, and 250mm C lenses.

Regarding the print, I really am aware of the differences between what's on the screen and what I create in my darkroom. Just last night, I fished a series of 8x10s (18 of them) and time after time I thought, there is so mich more room for enlargement and so much more detail here to bring out. An 8x10 does not really do very much for the 6x7 negative, so why would some one look at a screen to judge the detail?

To large format: I do want a field camera, probably 4x5 because that's the biggest size I can use on my enlarger. The problem isn't just the camera and lens, though. It's really all the money I'd have to sink into it on the back end. Sheet film, developing costs, bigger paper and lots of it... Eventually, I'm going to have to buy a bigger house with room for a bigger sink - no kidding! For now, I only make money from film in this middle zone. If I won the lottery, I'd shoot 8x10 color, too.

For polarizing filters, you've got to be able to see. No question. Same thing with gradient ND filters. If I'm using filters, I'm using the RB. If I'm shooting people on location with the M7ii, I'm likely not using filters very often, though exceptions would occur. Filters would be a definite limitation on the M7ii.
 

mweintraub

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
1,730
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Medium Format
Alan Gales said:
Bright screens can be expensive but in my opinion worth it.
Click to expand...

I'm now learning the cost. Someone even said just upgrade to the 67ii because of the costs of the new screen and installation. Ugh, what did I get myself into?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…