Medium format rangefinders

Gibran · Feb 18, 2006

The Mamiya Rangefinders are very quite but the Fuji's mentioned are really not that quiter than say a Hasselblad due to the metallic sound of the built in counter mechanism. I bet if you used a sound meter, the peak would be about the same, though it is a very different sound. I like the Fuji very much. Contrast wise though, the Zeiss lenses show more contrast than the Fuji. The Fuji has a softer look as do most lenses from Japan when compared to German lenses, at least that has been my experience with Pentax, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Bronica when compared to the Zeiss and Schneider lenses on Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes. One is not better or worse than the other, its just a different look and charecter...and it is not about ultimate resolving ability but more about accutance and the appearance of sharpness. With B&W, one can make any of these lenses look however you wish. That's my take on it at least.

narsuitus said:
I use the 6x7cm Fuji GW670III (90mm normal lens) and/or the 6x9cm Fuji GSW690III (65mm wide-angle lens) for medium format travel cameras. These manual/mechanical battery-independent cameras are very sturdy and very reliable. They are quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. They are large but no larger and even much lighter in weight than my 35mm motorized Nikon F2.

Before the Fuji rangefinders, I had been shooting a 6x6cm format. When I had to replace my 6x6 system, I decided to go with the larger 6x7 and 6x9 formats instead of the smaller 645 format because I did not notice a significant difference in image quality between the 645 and 35mm formats. I did, however, notice a significant difference in image quality between the 6x7 and 6x9 formats verses the 35mm format.

My two medium format rangefinders are great for scenic shots, group shots, and street shots. However, not being able to take good medium format head & shoulder portraits with a telephoto lens is the biggest disadvantage for me. If Fuji had produced a fixed telephoto lens rangefinder to supplement my fixed normal lens and fixed wide-angle lens rangefinders, I would have been very happy. [Please note: the older Fuji rangefinders do have interchangeable lenses.]

When I purchased my Fuji rangefinders, I also considered the Mamiya rangefinder with its interchangeable lenses but its price far exceeded my budget.

sanking · Feb 18, 2006

I agree with you about the limitations of lens choice on the fixed lens Fuji 6X7 and 6X9 cameras, though much depends on the kind of work we do. In my own work I find very little use for the GSW690III (65mmlens), and even with the GW690II (90mm lens) I often find myself wanting a slightly longer focal length.

This is one of the reasons I find the GA645Zi so attractive. The moderate wide angle to telephoto zoom (55-90mm), though farily limited, covers about 90% of the focal lengths that I typically look for in the kind of photography I use it for. In walking around with the Fuji 6X9s I find myself often wanting a slightly longer focal length.

I don't agree at all about the comparison 35mm to 6X4.5. I personally see a tremendous differnce between the two, much greater than going from 6X4.5 to 6X9. And if you shoot 220, as I do almost exclusively with the GA645Zi, the 6X4.5 format is every bit as convenient, since you get 32 shots from a roll of 220 film. BTW, everything I do with the 645Zi is in color, as my working procedure is to scan everything in medium format size so the color gives me the option of later going to either monochrome or color prints.

Sandy

narsuitus said:
I use the 6x7cm Fuji GW670III (90mm normal lens) and/or the 6x9cm Fuji GSW690III (65mm wide-angle lens) for medium format travel cameras. These manual/mechanical battery-independent cameras are very sturdy and very reliable. They are quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. They are large but no larger and even much lighter in weight than my 35mm motorized Nikon F2.

Before the Fuji rangefinders, I had been shooting a 6x6cm format. When I had to replace my 6x6 system, I decided to go with the larger 6x7 and 6x9 formats instead of the smaller 645 format because I did not notice a significant difference in image quality between the 645 and 35mm formats. I did, however, notice a significant difference in image quality between the 6x7 and 6x9 formats verses the 35mm format.

My two medium format rangefinders are great for scenic shots, group shots, and street shots. However, not being able to take good medium format head & shoulder portraits with a telephoto lens is the biggest disadvantage for me. If Fuji had produced a fixed telephoto lens rangefinder to supplement my fixed normal lens and fixed wide-angle lens rangefinders, I would have been very happy. [Please note: the older Fuji rangefinders do have interchangeable lenses.]

When I purchased my Fuji rangefinders, I also considered the Mamiya rangefinder with its interchangeable lenses but its price far exceeded my budget.

JosBurke · Feb 18, 2006

MF Rangefinder--Several options!!

As a long time Hasselbad user myself (as the orig thread poster) I was seeking a MF rangefinder myself and chose the Mamiya 7II----I find the lenses as sharp if not sharper and contrast-ier than the Zeiss glass and that's saying a lot. I prefer the 6x7 format over the 6x6 square--I surprised myself on that one too---I'll not step on toes here but I think you may wish to step up above 6x6 and try 6x7 or even 6x9 as several have suggested and I am a big fan of Fuji glass as well. I really like the 6x7 format and the hand hold-ability of the Mamiya 7II and have shot likely 99% with the Hassy on a tripod and still prefer a tripod for sharpness but the Mamiya is much more comfortable handheld than the Hassy (The Mamiya is great on a tripod too!)---Heck--after using the Mamiya 7 I don't even pick up my Leica M3 anymore with such a fine camera as the 7II and that big ole' 6x7 negative!! No comparison!! Lots of choices but do consider upping from 6x6--you'll be glad you did!!

narsuitus · Feb 19, 2006

agGNOME said:
I always find such statements astonishing as 645 is 2.7X the area of 35mm. I see a huge difference in quality between 35mm and 645.

Please keep in mind that negative size is only one factor in image quality. Lens quality and mirror vibration are also important factors. When I did my comparison between 645 and 35mm images, I only compared SLRs. I did not compare the difference in image quality between a 645 rangefinder and a 35mm SLR.

If I had been starting from scratch, I would have purchased a 645 system and would never need a 35mm system. However, since I already owned a good 35mm system, the difference I saw in image quality between the 645 SLR and my 35mm SLR was just not large enough for me to justify the purchase of a second system.

narsuitus · Feb 19, 2006

Gibran said:
... the Fuji's mentioned are really not that quiter than say a Hasselblad...

Please note that I said the Fuji rangefinders were quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. The 6x7cm Pentax SLR and the 6x7cm Mamiya SLR are comparable cameras. The 645 and 6x6cm Hasselblad SLRs are not comparable.

Robert Budding · Feb 19, 2006

agGNOME said:
"I always find such statements astonishing as 645 is 2.7X the area of 35mm. I see a huge difference in quality between 35mm and 645. I do see the benefit of even larger formats, but I, myself, see the largest improvement when moving from 35mm to 645."
Nope, you really need the 6x9. And I can help you, or Mr Callow fund the purchase.
in exchange for one of your systems

At what enlargement size? Yes, at 20x24 there is a difference. But 645 goes very nicely to 16x20. And if you really want the very best prints, then bag MF and get a LF camera.

Gibran · Feb 19, 2006

narsuitus said:
Please note that I said the Fuji rangefinders were quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. The 6x7cm Pentax SLR and the 6x7cm Mamiya SLR are comparable cameras. The 645 and 6x6cm Hasselblad SLRs are not comparable.

You did not mention either a Mamiya or Pentax in your original post but did mention that you had moved from a 6x6 system. So which Pentax or Mamiya SLR system would that be? I am not aware of any 6x6 SLR systems by those two. I am also not aware of any 6x9 SLR systems at all to campare to a Fuji 6x9 Rangfinder. No doubt it would be very loud if it existed. I know its hard to believe but there are some people who actually prefer a square format for aesthetic reasons thus a 6x6 would certainly compare to 6x7. As far as the Mamiya SLR's go, Since they are not easily hand held at all(The RB and RZ), how "comparable" are they really to the question at hand? The only point I made was to not lump together the larger Fuji Rangefinders with the Mamiyas just as far as Quiteness goes becouse there is a big difference.

Tom Stanworth · Feb 19, 2006

How you take to a camera is important. Having a camera that handles just right for you is more important for street/travel work than landscapes as things happen quickly and you might not want to linger squinting and fumbling. The intuitive handling of the RF645 was major factor in my buying it. I picked one up in a shop merely to have a play and it felt so right more so than any camera of any format I have ever used (OK equals the Eos 3). Here are my reasons for the 645.

1. If you want a small outfit with 2-3 lenses, lens choice is not limiting! The only issue is finding a long lens (100 or 135) and in the case of the 135 getting it matched with your body. Personally I am after a 135 and with match them. Feel the 100 is too short.
2. Handling is incredible. I find Mamiya 7 grip totally wrong for my hands. Not natural grip as my finger always falls on finger lip on grip and I have to move it. Might be perfect for you!
3. Rock solid build.
4. Great meter
5. V V sharp small lenses.
6. Camera is plenty smaller than M7 in the flesh as front element to rear of camera back is much much shorter.
7. 645 neg with slow film enlarges well with little grain. 645 TriX in rodinal or 3200 film gives grain if I want it. 6x7 negs are harder to generate grain with if you want it- however you might only want the creamy stuff! 645 gives both options easily.

I have 2 bodies and the 65/45 lenses. No complaints. Vertical finder not an issue for me.

As an aside, Perez (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html) found that the Mamiya 7 and 6 lenses were very appreciably sharper than mainstream MF lenses, enought to catch up with 6x9 fujis when shot optimally (f5.6-11) or even surpass them, but not at small apertures when diffraction closed the gap. Looks like when shot 2 stops down the M7 lenses are in a league of their own.

I dunno how good the RF645 lenses are on paper but they are truly superb. Tho I have never owned a M7 I have printed dozens of prints from a friends M7 negs. I cannot see any difference in image quality (pro rata) btwn RF645 negs and M7. Up to 12x9.5 there really is nothing btwn them. Both are razor sharp and generate lots of contrast. At 20x16 with TriX the RF645 negs are looking beautifull with tight crisp grain and that wonderful classical street look.

I would go for a RF645 or Mamiya 7 and forget the others. The Fujiis either dont have interchangeable lenses, or the build or both...or in the case of the Zi are autofocus zoom etc. Mamiya 6 is not cheap enuff IMO to tempt away from used 7.

My advice, Pick your options up if possible and point them at stuff. That will prob give you your answer!

Oh, the RF645 is cheap so you can add a second body and still save lots over the Mamiya 7. Mamiya 7 wides are an obscene price....unless you have owned a Hassy as you have!

Tom.

agGNOME · Feb 19, 2006

Robert Budding said:
At what enlargement size? Yes, at 20x24 there is a difference. But 645 goes very nicely to 16x20. And if you really want the very best prints, then bag MF and get a LF camera.

I'm sorry, I guess my comment didn't clearly come through with the humor intended. My point was that I would love to have your rf645 or MrCallow's mamiya 6! For my own criteria....how & what I shoot, these two systems I hold in equally high regard. I've handled a couple of Rf645's in person , but not the M6. These would be my picks in a MF rangefinder. If anyone would like to hear why I'd be happy to share. But, I think people are spliting hairs over the technical achievements of one medium format size over the other. MrCallow brought up the most important point here, and that is :
"There is no replacement for displacement."
Or, what works for one person may have no relevance for the next. You have to use the equipment that best suits your criteria. And I would be, but I just don't have the funds. Until that time, a 6x6 slr and tlr combo is getting the job done.

narsuitus · Feb 20, 2006

Gibran said:
You did not mention either a Mamiya or Pentax in your original post but did mention that you had moved from a 6x6 system. So which Pentax or Mamiya SLR system would that be? I am not aware of any 6x6 SLR systems by those two. I am also not aware of any 6x9 SLR systems at all to campare to a Fuji 6x9 Rangfinder. No doubt it would be very loud if it existed. I know its hard to believe but there are some people who actually prefer a square format for aesthetic reasons thus a 6x6 would certainly compare to 6x7. As far as the Mamiya SLR's go, Since they are not easily hand held at all(The RB and RZ), how "comparable" are they really to the question at hand? The only point I made was to not lump together the larger Fuji Rangefinders with the Mamiyas just as far as Quiteness goes becouse there is a big difference.

Sorry I did not make myself clear in my original post.

I hope the following helps clarify what I was trying to say.

When I had to replace my Mamiya 6x6cm TLR medium format system, I decided to replace it with a larger medium format. While shopping, I compared the noise level of the Fuji rangefinders to the 6x7cm Pentax SLR and the 6x7cm Mamiya SLR. One reason I decided against these two SLR cameras was because their noise level was too high for my taste. I probably should have mentioned in my first post that I was comparing the Fuji to these two SLRs.

By the way, I too prefer the 6x6cm square format. I wish I could have stayed with it. In fact, if Mamiya had not abandoned its TLR, I would have replaced by old system with new Mamiya 6x6 TLR hardware.

sanking · Feb 20, 2006

Tom Stanworth said:
As an aside, Perez (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html) found that the Mamiya 7 and 6 lenses were very appreciably sharper than mainstream MF lenses, enought to catch up with 6x9 fujis when shot optimally (f5.6-11) or even surpass them, but not at small apertures when diffraction closed the gap. Looks like when shot 2 stops down the M7 lenses are in a league of their own.

Tom.

OK, I sure don't want to argue over this since I think the Mamiya 7 is a great camera, and in fact am thinking about selling my Fuji 6X9s to finance in part a Mamiya 7 outfit because of the greater versatility and additonal features it has over the Fujis. But, I simply don't accept the results of the test you mention. One is advised to take all comparison numbers such as these with a very large grain of salt. I have seen this test before but simply dont buy it as a realistic comparison of the difference in optical quality of the Fuji 690 cameras and the Mamiya 7. I have used both of these cameras, and tested the Fuji 90mm lens of the GW690II against the 80mm lens of the 7, using similar procedures, and I simply did not observe anything similar to the differences in resolution cited, which are in the range of 50% better in lppm for the Mamiya 7. IMHO no way this is true, and my opinion is based on both testing and field work with the two cameras. In my tests both the Fuji and Mamiya lenses were able to resolve between 75-85 lppm at optimum apertures, and beyond that one has to be a very sympathetic observer to find any difference.

One must be very suspicious of optical tests with the AF resolutin chart because there can be considerable variations in results in this type of testing for a number of reasons, even when one uses the same film, developer, and time of development: 1) individual samples can and do vary a lot (if you look at some of Kerrys testing of the same lens in the same shutter, for example, you will find some very significant differences, 2) extremely small differences in individual idiosyncrasies in method of focusing can show a big difference in results, especially with rangefinder focusing at the distances involved in this type of testing, 3) and there is more than a little subjectivity in interpretation of resolution, such that the same individual looking at the same test from one day to the next can easily be inconsistent by more than 10-15%.

Sandy

Gibran · Feb 20, 2006

A few remarks concerning your link at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html Both the Mamiya Rangefinder lenses and the Fujis perform extremely well. In actual field conditions with real live film, the differences hand held would not be noticeable. That said, I had the mamiya 6 and the 50mm G lens on that camera was remarkable. There is always sample variation in anything, particularly with lenses, but that 50mm Mamiya was clearly better than a Zeiss 50mm FLE Distagon I had(for a short time) when shot on my Hasselblad. I was less impressed with the mamiya 6 body though as far as build quality goes. The winding lever/mechanism in particular felt a little fragile to me. I actually find the Fuji GSW 690111 to be built better. The back is extremely robust and very nicely made internally(Many nice big stainless steel rollers and very nice pressure plate) and the winding mechanism feels solid. The mamiya did have a superior rangefinder though(although it did not change its size with focused distance as does the Fuji). I sometimes print 6x6 full frame and one thing which bothered me a lot about the mamiya was that the frame edges where not well finished. Probably not a big deal to most people but that was a huge surprise to me, that lack of attention to detail. The Fuji? Perfectly finished frame with a neat v notch.

Tom Stanworth said:
How you take to a camera is important. Having a camera that handles just right for you is more important for street/travel work than landscapes as things happen quickly and you might not want to linger squinting and fumbling. The intuitive handling of the RF645 was major factor in my buying it. I picked one up in a shop merely to have a play and it felt so right more so than any camera of any format I have ever used (OK equals the Eos 3). Here are my reasons for the 645.

1. If you want a small outfit with 2-3 lenses, lens choice is not limiting! The only issue is finding a long lens (100 or 135) and in the case of the 135 getting it matched with your body. Personally I am after a 135 and with match them. Feel the 100 is too short.
2. Handling is incredible. I find Mamiya 7 grip totally wrong for my hands. Not natural grip as my finger always falls on finger lip on grip and I have to move it. Might be perfect for you!
3. Rock solid build.
4. Great meter
5. V V sharp small lenses.
6. Camera is plenty smaller than M7 in the flesh as front element to rear of camera back is much much shorter.
7. 645 neg with slow film enlarges well with little grain. 645 TriX in rodinal or 3200 film gives grain if I want it. 6x7 negs are harder to generate grain with if you want it- however you might only want the creamy stuff! 645 gives both options easily.

I have 2 bodies and the 65/45 lenses. No complaints. Vertical finder not an issue for me.

As an aside, Perez (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html) found that the Mamiya 7 and 6 lenses were very appreciably sharper than mainstream MF lenses, enought to catch up with 6x9 fujis when shot optimally (f5.6-11) or even surpass them, but not at small apertures when diffraction closed the gap. Looks like when shot 2 stops down the M7 lenses are in a league of their own.

I dunno how good the RF645 lenses are on paper but they are truly superb. Tho I have never owned a M7 I have printed dozens of prints from a friends M7 negs. I cannot see any difference in image quality (pro rata) btwn RF645 negs and M7. Up to 12x9.5 there really is nothing btwn them. Both are razor sharp and generate lots of contrast. At 20x16 with TriX the RF645 negs are looking beautifull with tight crisp grain and that wonderful classical street look.

I would go for a RF645 or Mamiya 7 and forget the others. The Fujiis either dont have interchangeable lenses, or the build or both...or in the case of the Zi are autofocus zoom etc. Mamiya 6 is not cheap enuff IMO to tempt away from used 7.

My advice, Pick your options up if possible and point them at stuff. That will prob give you your answer!

Oh, the RF645 is cheap so you can add a second body and still save lots over the Mamiya 7. Mamiya 7 wides are an obscene price....unless you have owned a Hassy as you have!

Tom.

michaelsalomon · Feb 20, 2006

Thanks for the input everyone. Im going to be playing around with a bunch of these cameras over the next few weeks. A freind owns a couple of fuji's and i'll be in the city to drool over the mamiya's at B&H. I like a big neg, so im sure Ill wind up going 6 x 6 or bigger.

Thanks again everyone,
Mike

boilerdoc · Feb 23, 2006

For the absolute best in negative size and quality of lenses the mamiya 6 or 7 can not be beaten. It is virtually silent in operation. And the prints!! Whew!
It is a Leica on steroids.
For compactness and less $ the Bronica RF. Little hard to find, especially the longer lens.
I had the M6 and upgraded to the M7ii; you can always crop right?
Boilerdoc

Robert Budding · Feb 25, 2006

boilerdoc said:
For the absolute best in negative size and quality of lenses the mamiya 6 or 7 can not be beaten. It is virtually silent in operation. And the prints!! Whew!
It is a Leica on steroids.
For compactness and less $ the Bronica RF. Little hard to find, especially the longer lens.
I had the M6 and upgraded to the M7ii; you can always crop right?
Boilerdoc

Agreed. For the money, the Bronica RF645 is awesome. I paid only $550 for a new body with 65mm lens. And I was lucky enough to find a 100mm lens. The 45mm lens was easy to find.

michaelsalomon · Feb 25, 2006

I had the chance to fondle a mamiya 7II the other day...I never liked rangefinders, but this thing felt right at home, looks like i'll be saving my loose change to buy one, I think it'll pair really nicely with the 100 rols of agfa portrait 160 I picked up for cheap the other day!

cheers all,
Mike

ann · Feb 25, 2006

am late jumping into the fold here; i have a plaubel makina 6x7 folder, which i love.

very sharp lens, however , it is fixed, but for a walking around town camera it fits me.
Fold it up and drop it in a pocket.

However, they can' t be found new.

Helen B · Feb 25, 2006

Hundreds of Makina owners will now come out of the woodwork. Great cameras. I have the 67 and the W67. So easy to carry, so sharp.

Best,
Helen

bjorke · Feb 27, 2006

Here's a snap of a drying RF645 neg.

The biggest failing of the camera is the inability to get close. This is 1m focus with the 65mm. Good luck finding a 100mm or 135mm, rumour has it that Tamron destroyed the stock as a tax writeoff!

Medium format rangefinders

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency