Re: Mamaya 7 vs leica M6 - opinions

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 08:56 PM 1/11/97 -0600, you wrote:
>I would like to hear some comments from those who have used both the
>Mamaya 7 and Leica M6. For hand-held photojournalism, is the Mamaya
>7 a legitimate alternative, in spite of its extra weight, due
>to the larger film format?
>
I own the Mamiya 7 system, and before that had the Mamiya 6.  In addition, I
have an early M6 that I bought new and have used a fair amount.

The Leica M6, as you know, has some special advantages for photojournalism.
It is small, unobtrusive, and quiet, so you can work pretty close to the
action.  In addition, it focuses quickly as manual cameras go if you
practice, and very well in low light. There are good-performing fast lenses
available.  You can see the action around the edges of the frameline, so you
can predict what's going to come into view before it gets there.

The Mamiya 6 and 7 share some of these advantages.  They have very quiet
leaf shutters, and are certainly less obtrusive than most other MF
cameras--for what they are, the cameras are really quite small and portable.
The lenses are truly outstanding, especially the wide-angles, and the
selection is fairly good from the point of view of available focal
lengths--while the Leica M6 will take you from 21 to 135, the Mamiya 7 has
the 35 mm. equivalent of about 21 to 75, and the Mamiya 6 from 28 to 80.  In
addition, the Mamiyas have aperture-preferred automatic, something that has
still eluded the Wizards of Wetzlar, so under some conditions you can shoot
more quickly than with the M6 (though, in fairness, the Mamiya light meter
is not TTL).  The Mamiyas are quite easy to hand-hold--I am very critical
and do big enlargements, but I have been able to do some hand-held shots
which stand up to my tripod mounted ones (try that with a Pentax 67!).

However, I'm not sure I'd see the Mamiyas as photojournalists' cameras.  The
lenses are quite slow by 35 standards--they go from f3.5 to f4.5.  In
addition, there are big depth of field problems--it's less the larger the
format (given the same circle of confusion and same angle of view), so you
have to stop down more to keep the same things in focus as compared with 35.
So overall you are pretty much out of the ball game handheld in low light.
While the Mamiyas are small and light given their format, they certainly do
look interesting to the lay person (but then, so does a Nikon F4), while the
Leica M often goes unnoticed--so it would be a bit hard to work in close to
the action with the Mamiyas.

But the most important problem for me would be the focusing.  If you can
pre-set your distance using the scale on the lens and solve the DOF problem
I mentioned, then you'll be fine.  But to me the Mamiya RF is not as easy to
focus quickly and accurately as the Leica one, I think.  I am over 50 and
wear glasses, so this might not be as much of a problem  for someone else,
but I find you have got to center your eye very carefully and follow the
basic RF focusing rule--start at one end and bring the focusing aids
together in one motion; never rack it back and forth.  Even then I have
problems--e.g., I don't think I could use the 150 on my Mamiya 7 (= 75 in
35) wide open with much confidence.  I've been considering trying it without
my glasses with a diopter--maybe that'll help.

Having said all that, I just love the Mamiya 7.  It's a camera that Leica
could have built and didn't--indeed, its designer is an admirer of the Leica
M's.  But I use it for landscapes, architecture, and travel, so I use it
generally pretty well stopped down, and can take my time, thus partially
overcoming the focusing problems.  It's a lightweight, high quality
alternative to my Pentax 67 (the Mamiya's lenses are a bit better, too).
(Note that many pros use the Mamiya 6 as an alternative to their
Hasselblads, and many think the Mamiya's 50 is better than the 'blad
equivalent.)  I do a high percentage of my work on tripods with Velvia, and
I can use a little tripod with the Mamiya, where the Pentax requires a monster.

This got way too long.  Hope it helps.

Charlie

Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU