I am just in the process of taking this big step. I'd like to see what the old timers out there perfer. I have been looking at the Bronica SQ ai 6x6cm and the Mamiya. My main goal is to use it for both outside and in studio. How do they handle repairs? Easier grip for little hands?? Any commentsend directly to my email will be greatly appreciated. I don't get to check out this site everyday Regards, Carmen

-- Carmen Wilson (momanddad@att.net), April 27, 2000

Answers

Which Mamiya? the 6x6 (330 or 220?) or the 6? The 6x7, or the 7, 6x9 press, or 6x4.5? whew!... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 28, 2000.

Which Mamiya? the 6x6 (330 or 220?) or the 6? The 6x7, or the 7, 6x9 press, or 6x4.5? whew! Maybe you want photo.net or the Medium format digest... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 28, 2000.

I have a Mamiya- and am a loyal fan. My camera is old though (twins reflex from 70s). It is a very reputable company. My grandmother has 10 Mamiyas they use for a wedding company, all 10 years+ with little repair...shoot both well in and out. I would assume newer cameras might even be better. My professor uses Hasselblad and thinks it's Gods design for a medium format. A friend uses Bronica and hasn't complained. He's had his camera for a year. Find out what the pro and con is to each camera and then pick the one that suits you the best.

-- Erica Musser (artfisch@thedigitaltribe.com), April 29, 2000.

Mamiya. Hands down. No contest.

-- fred (fdeaton@hiwaay.net), April 29, 2000.

The "old timers" are using Hasselblad!

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 03, 2000.

I don't know about larger Mamiya's but I struggled with Mamiya 645's for about 4 years. Mamiya's 645 lenses are average or below average. For example. I get better depth of field with a Pentax 67 200mm lens than I ever did with a Mamiya 645 210mm lens at the same f stop. Mamiya 645 lenses also seemed a bit soft. I changed to a Pentax 67 system about 10 years ago and would not recommend anything else even though I used Hasselblad and Bronica's where I worked.

Pentax 67 lenses are the best!

Mark

-- Mark Bau (markbau@altavista.com), May 08, 2000.

. For example. I get better depth of field with a Pentax 67 200mm lens than I ever did with a Mamiya 645 210mm lens at the same f stop.

Only if the laws of physics have been suspended.

Pentax 67 lenses are the best! There are plenty of people who will disagree with you. I will only say that such statements are the epitome of absurdity.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 12, 2000.

Ay, ay, Jeff. I'm in full concurrence.

-- alpha-omega (None@atall.com), May 13, 2000.

He could have a valid point, different lenses have different bokeh. See http://www.sm.edu/~rmonagha/mfu/bokeh.html.

-- Steven Fisher (srf@srf.com), May 13, 2000.

All things being equal a 200mm lens designed to cover a 645 neg should have BETTER D.O.F than a 200mm lens designed to cover a 67 lens, but I know from many rolls of film through a 645 Super that the Mamiya 210 didn't hold a candle to my Pentax 67 200mm lens. Laws of physics come into it yes, but so does the the competence of the person designing the lens.

Oh another thing, the hyperfocal markings on all of my Mamiya lenses were a joke, they were not even close, the hyperfocal markings on my P67 lenses are all spot on. (email me if you need an explanation of "hyperfocal")

Mark

-- Mark Bau (markbau@altavista.com), May 23, 2000.

Mark certainly refuted the laws of physics with his dof statements, but I have to aggree with him on the Pentax 200mm lens for 6X7. That is one sharp optic. Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com/

-- frank Ward (frank@culturalvisions.com), May 24, 2000.

Frank, I didn't refute the laws of physics re: DOF statements, Maniya did that with their lenses.

There are laws of physics and there are lens designers, pretty simple concept really!

Mark

-- Mark Bau (markbau@altavista.com), May 27, 2000.

Mark, OK, This Depth Of Focus thing is relative, but it is relative in the opposite direction than what you suggest. You said that a 200mm should have more DOF in a 645 version than a 6X7 version. Au contare! A 6X7 gives greater apparent DOF because it is a wider angle of view than the 645 version.

For example, my 300mm on my 8X10 Phillips has an angle of view equal to a 50mm lens on my 35mm Nikon. Unfortunately, the DOF equals the 300mm lens on my Nikon. Whether I use a 300mm on the Nikon or Phillips 8X10 it is still a three hundred mm lens and suffers from the same laws of physics. IOW, if I take a 35mm slice out of my 8X10 transparency and compare it with a 35mm slide taken from the same spot as my 8X10 shot they will both exhibit the same DOF.

"Say it isn't so", and if it isn't, I will be a very happy photographer. Start compiling a list of lenses in various focal length groups that have the best DOF. If I find out that a 200mm F4 has better DOF in the Mamiya Version than the Pentax version, someone is not doing their math correctly. Frank

-- Frank Ward (frank@culturalvisions.com), May 29, 2000.

My "first step" into MF was with the Mamiya C330. It's a good inexpensive starter camera & is the proverbial workhorse. You'll have to get used to using a waist-level finder & working with a new set of focal lengths (ie: 80mm for a "standard" lens as compared to 50 mm). But,I used mine for weddings, portraits, and all about shooting. Once you shoot MF, it'll get into your blood! Happy shooting!

-- Victor Reynolds (decosta1@hotmail.com), April 06, 2001.