Why Mamiya 7 II is too expensive?

Texsport said:

For maximum huge print sharpness the Mamiya lenses are superb, but, besides the price, fall sort of Fujica 690 and Norita 66 in at least 3 key respects - both the other cameras can be focused significantly closer to the subject than the Mamiya, allowing head only shots - both other cameras' lenses offer superior bokeh - and the 6X9 negative size blows away 6X7 always.

So, for some uses, the Mamiya isn't as capable. There's just no perfect camera.

Texsport

Click to expand...

Blows it away? I think not, particularly if you prefer a 4x5 crop. I do, and I wouldn't have much use for a 6x9 negative. For those of us who don't need to focus closely more than occasionally (if at all), the lack of close focus ability on the 7 is irrelevant. The out of focus rendition is completely inconsequential to me-- I still can't believe there are people who care about such things more than in passing.

RalphLambrecht said:

The Fuji is a toy compared to the Mamiya6 or 7

Click to expand...

Of course it is

shutterlight said:

Blows it away? I think not, particularly if you prefer a 4x5 crop. I do, and I wouldn't have much use for a 6x9 negative. For those of us who don't need to focus closely more than occasionally (if at all), the lack of close focus ability on the 7 is irrelevant. The out of focus rendition is completely inconsequential to me-- I still can't believe there are people who care about such things more than in passing.

Click to expand...

But Bokeh is why we buy sharp focus lenses, right?

If I want fuzzy I bring out the Holga.

Ghostman said:

But Bokeh is why we buy sharp focus lenses, right?

If I want fuzzy I bring out the Holga.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying-- I feel like you could be doing a bit of satire, or you could be serious. I care about what's in focus in my pictures-- I'm not really interested in the specific look the out of focus areas have. Generally speaking, it all looks the same to me, regardless of the lens. There is no sharper lens than the 80/4 of the 7, so the "sharp focus" is certainly covered there.

shutterlight said:

I don't understand what you're saying-- I feel like you could be doing a bit of satire, or you could be serious. I care about what's in focus in my pictures-- I'm not really interested in the specific look the out of focus areas have. Generally speaking, it all looks the same to me, regardless of the lens. There is no sharper lens than the 80/4 of the 7, so the "sharp focus" is certainly covered there.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to add a sarcasm emoticon. Why would I buy the sharpest lenses a medium format camera has to offer were I interested in what is out of focus?

If I want out of focus; I use my Holga. When I use my Mamiya, I want sharp.

I understand now .

amellice said:

The camera usually runs on eBay in the range 1000~2000. Comparing to other medium format I'd say that it's on the expensive side, any particular reasons?

Click to expand...

The price is kept high so that you will buy a Hasselblad or Leica instead.

Owned a Mamiya 7 with both 50 and 80mm lenses. Great glass no doubt but I find my Bronica GS-1 with 110mm macro on a tripod with slow film does quite well and gives comparable 20x24 lightjet/drumscan prints upon close inspection if viewed side by side. I miss being able to handhold the Mamiya 7. This is what they are designed for. The irony is that few if ever see what the optics are capable of because they do hand hold the camera. Sharp results handheld obviously. But quite a bit sharper on a tripod. Unfortunately, The Mamiya 7 is a nightmare on a tripod in my view. Very awkward and difficult to use. Later sold the outfit for quite a bit more than I paid for it. Just did not use it enough to justify keeping it around. I now use a fuji ga645zi if I must shoot handheld. Cheap and quite nice glass (though not as refined as the m7 mind you) that delivers nice 11x14 inkjets from Portra 400 when scanned with a Nikon 9000ED.

As to the "sharpest optics ever" obviously this is decidedly NOT TRUE. Ever heard of the Zeiss OTUS? or how about the 45mm f2 for the contax G series? or some of the beautiful Schneider glass for the Rollei 6008 series?

The Mamiya 7 has the sharpest medium format RANGEFINDER glass. Not the "sharpest glass" known to mankind. The m7 also has some of the ugliest disgusting "BOKEH" I've ever encountered.

They really are expensive because of the wealthy art school kids. 2 or 3k for a Mamiya 7 is nothing to private art school students. However, in the future the price of these cameras will go DOWN. Nikon d800 and Canon's new 50 megapixel uber digital cameras have quite nice output so if you need to print big digital has finally arrived at a reasonable pricepoint.

shutterlight said:

I understand now .

Click to expand...

First of all, "bokeh" and soft focus are different subjects. Think of bokeh as having someone's face in focus, for example, but having the out-of-focus background rendered in a fashion that is pleasant and undistracting, as opposed to having double lines, harsh edges, an hexagonal specular reflections. M7 lenses don't do this well at all; but then this isn't a system well adapted to longer lenses with their shallower depth of field anyway. And as far as haggling over the finer points of sheer resolution, if that kind of thing is a primary concern, or related use for big enlargements, any garden-variety 4x5 film and lens will blow away anything medium format, as long as one's technique is competent at all. Just depends what you realistically need. Some people love rangefinders, and some people hate em.