Re: [Leica] Big M6 - Mamiya

["Bill O'Connell" <woc2@earthlink.net>]

Mark,  Intersting that he is going from Mamiya 6 to Hassy.  I did the other
way and have not looked back.  Yes the Hassy has more lenses, can be SLR, and
has changable backs but the Mamiya's system works better for me, which is, of
course, my priority.
My 1st was the non-mf version that a friend talked me out of after a few
years.  It struck me at the time (and still does) that it was like a medium
format M6.  After being without it for some months, I replaced it with the MF
version and got the adaptor you speak of.  This one is a keeper.  Looked into
the 7 but did not warm up to it for whatever reason.
Found a lab in VA that does a great job of processing the 35 panos.  Managed
to expose 8 rolls in Ireland as a test and was very happy.  (Ireland seems a
great place for my new equipment testing - this year it was the noct :->  )
I find that I use the 50 most of the time but do have the other lenses.  A
300 would be nice but is not going to happen, sigh.
Optically I found the lenses to be as good or better using the poor but
effective - Is Bill Happy testing method.  Not quite up the Erwin's methods
but those that do the real testing seemed to agree so.....
The 6 was dropped from the line this year so I expect some bargins might be
available and I'm comfortable with the fact that Mamiya will support it for
some time to come.
Bottom line?  If the price is within your budget, get it.  Fine addition to
the Leica.
Bill

> > Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >
> > We love our rangefinders; and we love our optics too. I know a guy who
> > is selling his Mamaya 6. Because it didn't compete with his Hasselblad
> > optically? That could be the reason although I have to get around to
> > asking him. He might be reluctant to tell be because He wants me to buy
> > it. I'm intrigued by the 35mm panoramic capability on the 6 and the 7
> > the 6 might be available much cheaper.
> > I anticipate the optics on these Mamiya's being a let down to the Zeiss
> > and Leitz acclimated. I'm sure someone is making loop de loop claims to
> > the contrary but I'm not sure of any consensus or impressive test
> > results to back that up. How good do these optics need to be? That's up
> > to you. You've got those Hasselblad prints hanging on your wall.
> > Mark Rabiner
> >