Swapping Leica M for Mamiya 7 ??

[jmooney]

Hi All,

I'm thinking of swapping my Leica M6 for a Mamiya 7. The obvoius gain is in negative real estate but what are the downsides? Has anyone made the switch? How did it go for you? My main use for the M6 is my everyday carry camera to shoot whatever may come, sort of my notebook of my life. It takes me about a month to go through a 24 exp roll of 135.

I pretty much only shoot with a 35 on my M so I was going to go with the 65mm lens and add the 150 in case I need something to get in close.

I'd appreciate any insight anyone can give.

Take care,

Jim

[M. Valdemar]

Swap away.

Apples and oranges.

You mentioned the difference yourself.

The Mamiya weighs a ton and has a bigger negative.

What sort of insight are you looking for?

[pevelg]

I tried making the switch a couple months ago. Here is why I didn't:

1. Can't use Kodachrome (unless you want all shots panoramic)
2. Film expensive to process (compared by picture/cost ratio)
3. Can't view in projector unless you want spend time mounting.
4. I just love my M6TTL too dearly and I couldn't part with her. As I could not afford both, I sadly said goodbye to the Mamiya 7 and sold her.

Instead, I got a Hassy system for 1/2 the price. Not as comfortable as the Mamiya and smaller negative (by 1cm, not big diff), but allows me to own a MF and my Leica and be able to get those gorgeous MF pictures.

[gdi]

As Nasby said there significant differences. The Mamiya is bigger but doesn't weigh that much really. With the 65mm, I would compare it too a big AF SLR. I know some people here are very weak and the weight of an SLR does permanant damage, so YMMV.

The lenses are pretty slow compared to most M lenses - 4.0-4.5. You can't focus close enough for head shots( 65 is around 1 meter and the 150 is 1.8). Fastest shutter speed is 1/500. When its loaded and ready to go, it is easy and quick to use, with a good (gotta get use to it) non-TTL meter. But loading film is slower - you get 10 shots per roll - and changing lenses is significantly slower. If you are going to scan. you need to allocate at least $2000 for a MF film scanner (new price) to get the most of the benefit of the neg size.

The quality of the negative is, obviously, no comparison. Also you can do Panos by cropping or using the adapter with 35mm fim. A lot of people don't see the point, but I find it a huge advantage to use 35mm film when I want or need to- drop off at the 1hr, film not available in 120, etc.

I use an M system much more frequently.

[JRG]

As far as angle of view goes, if you like a 35mm lens on 135 format, you might want to consider the 80mm lens on the Mamiya.

You've got to take aspect ratio into account here --- 1:1.5 vs. 1:1.25. If you're accustomed to cropping 135 negatives to fit 8x10 paper (or, doing the equivalent with a .jpg, etc.), then it makes sense to use the short sides of the negatives for comparison (24 vs. 56 or so). because your cropping leaves , in effect, a 24x30 frame. On that basis, the Mamiya 65mm has the angle of view of a 28mm on 135, while the Mamiya 80mm lens has the angle of view of a 34mm lens on 135 format.

You can also use the long sides of the frames (36 vs. 70 or so) to make comparisons. On that basis, the Mamiya 65mm lens matches up with a 34mm lens on 135, and the Mamiya 80mm lens matches up with a 42mm lens on 135 format. But using that basis is tantamount to comparing a 24x36 frame with a 46x70mm frame --- i.e., cropping the 6x7 negative to 1:1.5 aspect ratio.

You can also use the diagonals for comparison, but that will give answers very similar to using the long sides of the two frames.

So, the Mamiya 65 corresponds to something in the 28mm-34mm range, depending on how you adjust for aspect ratio, while the 80mm lens corresponds to something in the 34mm--42mm range (on a 135 camera). If you're going to use the entire 56x70 frame (i.e., 1:1.25 aspect), lean toward the low end of those ranges; if you'll tend to crop toward 135 aspect ratio, lean toward the long end.

[Frank Petronio]

It all depends on the ISO and aperture/shutter speed you are comfortable with shooting at. If you find you can shoot Portra 400NC at 1/125 @ f/5.6 at the low end, then the Mamiya 7 is a practical camera for you. If you need more speed, then keep the Leica.

I think the Mamiya 7 is mostly an outdoor landscape photography camera.... It wouldn't be my first choice for portraits or low light work.

Also, the Mamiya is very nice, sharp as anything made, etc. but the build quality doesn't compare with any Leica.

[gdi]

Instead, I got a Hassy system for 1/2 the price. Not as comfortable as the Mamiya and smaller negative (by 1cm, not big diff), but allows me to own a MF and my Leica and be able to get those gorgeous MF pictures.

This an idea I have been considering - the Mamiya system is very expensive and I think the Hasselblad would be good compromise with lower cost and close quality. I'm just not using my 7II as much as I need to....

[JCT]

I have an M3 and recently purchased an M7II + 80mm -- as others have noted, they are very, very different. In my case, I purchased the M7II to have a walk-around and easy-to-travel with MF setup. I shoot mostly B&W and develop my own film, so the 10 shot/roll with the M7II is not a drawback to me.

For some reason, I am more measured/contemplative with the M7II -- more cognizant of composition. Almost like a junior version of my 4x5. And the negatives are just stellar. It's relative simplicity reminds me of my M3.

While I might end up using the M3 a bit less, I could never imagine selling it, we were "born" in the same year and it is an old, comfortable friend.

I should add that I have a Hassy 503CW, much more of a studio camera (for me) -- and the style of shooting is *much* different than the M7II. As my eyes have aged I have gained a true appreciation for the combination of rangefinder focusing and superlative glass and to me, both the M7II and the Leica just nails that description.

Good luck with your choice.

JT

[peter_n]

I know some people here are very weak and the weight of an SLR does permanant damage, so YMMV.Absolutely! :D

[aizan]

do it. processing one roll of film every week instead of every month would keep your juices flowing.

you could also wait for the fuji gf670, which should be an ideal vade mecum.

[Frank Petronio]

You might consider something like a Fuji Rangefinder -- their lenses are also amongst the sharpest ever, like the Mamiya, but simplified. And a Rollei 2.8 D, E, or F would be a a great "walk around" camera that might not be as cutting sharp as the Mamiya but they are sharp and also have a wonderful bokeh. The older D and E models are relative bargains.

Certain Hasselblad lenses are as sharp as the Mamiya, the 60 and 100 come to mind.

[Flat Earth]

I did have a Mamiya 7 and a Leica M7 at the same time. I have sold them both now since I have gone completely digital now (DMR and M8). When I did have them both, I used the Mamiya whenever I went outdoors. If I had to choose only one, I would pick the Mamiya.

Cons to the Mamiya.
Slow lenses and narrow DOF. Lenses are very good wide open but if you are shooting indoors, without flash, you may not be very happy.
Bulky camera relative to Leica. A Mamiya with lens weighs about the same as a Leica but is much larger in volume.
Plasticy feel to the camera and lens.

Pros to the Mamiya.
It has a better finder than M6 or M7, although it is somewhat dimmer. Never noticed flareout. If you wear glasses, you will see all the framelines with great ease.
Image quality. Size matters.
Cheap. I think I sold the Mamiya in user shape and 80 for something like a grand.
Durable. I have dropped the Mamiya several times and never had to adjust the rangefinder.

One thing to consider about image quality is that an M8 or DMR gives me better quality than scanned 6x7.

Jonathan

[gdi]

One thing to consider about image quality is that an M8 or DMR gives me better quality than scanned 6x7.

Jonathan

Here, (as I mentioned above) a lot depends on the scanner and technique used. I use a middle of the road - derided as "Prosumer" scanner :D - and my Mamiya 7II scans are far superior to the M8 for large prints. I haven't used a DMR, but haven't seen anything would lead me to believe it would be better than the 6x7.

Of course you have to pay a fair amount for the scanning hardware to bring out most of the Mamiya quality!

[Frank Petronio]

If your 6x7 scans from a Mamiya 7 aren't significantly better than a M8/DMR then perhaps it's time to get some better scans!

[lic4]

Working with the Mamiya changed my shooting style greatly. I ended up getting rid of it b/c of the style of photography I prefer (speed of use, discreet camera, spontaneity, low light) is suited to using a Leica (or other 35mm RF). I still use medium format, but I'm less obsessed with image resolution and sharpness these days as I am with the actual mood and atmosphere of the photograph. I'm very keen on 35mm.

[Flat Earth]

I never did invest heavily in MF scanning hardware since the Mamiya 7 was the only MF camera I ever used. I used an Epson flatbed, which did primary duty as an LF (4x5) scanner. Maybe other scanners would be better.
JOnathan

[qruyk12]

Great camera choice. I currently shoot a 7II with 80 and 43mm lenses. My only advice is try and find a 7II instead of a 7. The viewfinder is much improved. Email me if you need some tips on where to find a new at a very good price.

[Debusti Paolo]

Hi Jim ,why not a bronica rf645?smaller,lighter than a mamiya 7,has a better viewfinder than my m6 titan and lenses and small flash are outstanding!!!unfortunately I don't own a scanner to show to you the photos I've taken when my son is born (ilford 3200 handheld).consider that you can take 16 exp per 120 film(32 per 220 film) so you have much shots than the mamiya but a big negative.
I've used high sensitive film with 135mm but with 6x4.5 is simply another world!
I hope I helped you
ciao:)

[Zugzwang]

I agree with Debusti Paolo. The RF645 is a great camera. Not much larger than a leica. Bigger negatives. Outstanding lenses.Built solid like a leica. A nice compromise between the Mamiya 7 and leica.

[craygc]

I use both 'M's and Mamiya 7II's and you've certainly been given a lot of useful advice so far. The Mamiya is a fantastic camera (I have 2) but I certainly wouldn't consider replacing my 'M's with it. To me, these are such different systems which I find I use for different subjects with different techniques.

It shouldn't be about replacement bur rather augmentation.... :D

[TJV]

I own both and they're both brilliant but as an all around, carry everywhere camera, the Leica would probably be a better choice if only because of the fast lenses.

Lately I've been shooting 95% with the Mamiya 7ii but I see much more Leica shooting in my future - mainly quick street work and, as you put it, "sketch book" type stuff.

[Tuolumne]

I shoot both Leica Ms and the Mamiya 7ii. I find the difference in lens speed and depth of field to be so significant as to make them very different beasts. I cannot shoot them interchangeably.

/T

[PATB]

I have both (MP and M7II) and they are not interchangeable. I am glad I have both of them.

I will print 16x20 in a darkroom workshop this weekend: that calls for big negatives.

But I need fast lenses, smaller package, and more shots per roll than I need bigger negatives most of the time. If I have to choose between the two, the M stays.

I am browsing Edouard Boubat: The Monograph at the moment. You can tell the medium format shots from the Leica. But tell you what, it does not matter which camera he used to take the shot -- they are all excellent photography.

[BillBingham2]

Jim,

As you replacing your walk around camera, what about the new Fuji/Cosina folder? It should fit in a big jacket pocket without problems. Lens seems reasonably fast and it has a built in meter. The down side is it does not have interchangeable lenses, but then it is very small.

I have to agree that having less shots on a roll is very appealing and LARGE negatives are much more fun to deal with, scanning or printing.

Another option (but it's going over to the Dark Side) is the GR-D II and a CV Metal 28mm Bright Line Viewfinder on top. Fits in shirt pocket, great lens, lots of megapixels and shoots raw!

B2 (;->

[Svitantti]

I have a Mamiya 7 and Leica M4. Wouldn't want to lose my Leica, but the Mamiya bothers me, because I feel I dont use it enough.

Mamiya is nice, it makes great images. I own a 65mm and a 80mm, they are both awesome... But the lenses arent too fast. Of course medium format can tolerate push processing better, but still compared to 1.4 there's some difference. Also the size and electricity are downsides for me. 6x7 projector will cost money too for sure.

[Tuolumne]

I have a Mamiya 7 and Leica M4. Wouldn't want to lose my Leica, but the Mamiya bothers me, because I feel I dont use it enough.

Mamiya is nice, it makes great images. I own a 65mm and a 80mm, they are both awesome... But the lenses arent too fast. Of course medium format can tolerate push processing better, but still compared to 1.4 there's some difference. Also the size and electricity are downsides for me. 6x7 projector will cost money too for sure.

I've heard that MF projectors are awesome, but I just scan everything these days, so I don't bother to have chromes mounted, not even 35mm.

/T

[waileong]

I have Mamiya 6 and Leica M7.

I wouldn't trade one for the other.

M6 is very good, and handholdable to 1/8 because of the higher mass. So the f4 limitation of the lenses is tolerable, since you can shoot 120 film at ISO 800 with relatively little grain, even TMZ is relatively grainless.

However, an M7 with a 50/1 or 35/1.4 is a much faster shooting machine, esp with the Rapidwinder.

To use an analogy, the M6 is my rifle, the M7 is my sidearm. Most soldiers will not trade one for the other, and will want to go into combat with both.


Hi All,

I'm thinking of swapping my Leica M6 for a Mamiya 7. The obvoius gain is in negative real estate but what are the downsides? Has anyone made the switch? How did it go for you? My main use for the M6 is my everyday carry camera to shoot whatever may come, sort of my notebook of my life. It takes me about a month to go through a 24 exp roll of 135.

I pretty much only shoot with a 35 on my M so I was going to go with the 65mm lens and add the 150 in case I need something to get in close.

I'd appreciate any insight anyone can give.

Take care,

Jim

[percepts]

You don't say what you are photographing and where. If its indoors then you will likely need faster lenses than the Mamiya provides. But if its outdoors and landscapes or group shots, then the Mamiya would be a better option.
Since you are actually doing very little then why is it that you are considering a change anyway.
And as others have said, also depends on how you are using the negatives and what size prints you make. In theory bigger neg will always be better quality output. But only if your technique is good to start with. 35mm can and does produce good quality upto 20x16 or bigger if handled really well. Buying a bigger system to cover up poor technique is not the way to go. Using a lightweight monopod for outdoor shots can improve image quality a lot. If you aren't using one, try it and see if that makes the M quality good enough for you. A monopod is light and easy to carry and can double as a walking staff.

Really is a question of getting the right tool for the job at hand and not whether one camera is "better" than another.

[jmooney]

Hi All,

Thanks for all the continuing advice and thoughts. I'd just thought I'd update you all on where I'm at now:

I've since sold the 8X10 and a 5X7 is on the way. Much more cost effective to run and I can still very nicely scratch my contact printing itch.

I love my M6, it's small, light, stealthy and pretty quick, but most of all I seem to love the idea of it, moreso than shooting with it. It's a joy to use but doesn't quite jive with the way I take pictures so it and it's lenses are up in the classifieds here. Part of my decision is financial. I have a lot tied up in it and were I able to let it sit for when I get the urge to mess about with it I would but I can't right now. I'm positive I'll buy another M one day but it's not the right tool for the job at this point. It's not working as a primary camera for me.

I've also put aside the idea of a MF RF as my "notebook" camera. The close focus issues are the real deal killer for me at this point. I also really had my heart set on 6x7 as I'm not sure that 645 would work for me, mainly because I tend to shoot a lot of horizontals and all of them run the film vertically. The Mamiya 6 is an option but I'm not sure how I feel about the square format, I need to consider this more.

That said what I've wound up on at this point is my trusty Nikon N80. Small, light, AF, AE, pretty quiet, and built in flash. Paired up with a 35/2 and 85/1.8. I'll probably add a second body as they run about $50 these days and dedicate one to each lens. I also have a 24/2.8 that I use on my DSLR to give me a 35 so that's available for wide duty. Not as glamourus as a Leica M kit but very effective and useful. I'll be able to make photographs with it and as much as I love obsessing over gear, that really is what matters.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings on this, I'd love to hear them.

[Darren Abate]

I did have a Mamiya 7 and a Leica M7 at the same time. I have sold them both now since I have gone completely digital now (DMR and M8). When I did have them both, I used the Mamiya whenever I went outdoors. If I had to choose only one, I would pick the Mamiya.

Cons to the Mamiya.
Slow lenses and narrow DOF. Lenses are very good wide open but if you are shooting indoors, without flash, you may not be very happy.
Bulky camera relative to Leica. A Mamiya with lens weighs about the same as a Leica but is much larger in volume.
Plasticy feel to the camera and lens.

Pros to the Mamiya.
It has a better finder than M6 or M7, although it is somewhat dimmer. Never noticed flareout. If you wear glasses, you will see all the framelines with great ease.
Image quality. Size matters.
Cheap. I think I sold the Mamiya in user shape and 80 for something like a grand.
Durable. I have dropped the Mamiya several times and never had to adjust the rangefinder.

One thing to consider about image quality is that an M8 or DMR gives me better quality than scanned 6x7.

Jonathan


Jonathan,

I agree with most of your points but there is one that I have to markedly disagree with you on, and that is where you say that the M8 or DMR gives you a higher quality image than a scanned 6x7 frame. Having shot with the M8 and DMR, and owning a 7 II and other M's myself, I can say without a doubt that the quality I get from a well-exposed 6x7 frame, properly scanned, beats all the others hands down, especially when the image came through the Mamiya lens, which is absolutely one of the finest pieces of glass I have ever used.

D

[Darren Abate]

Hi All,

Thanks for all the continuing advice and thoughts. I'd just thought I'd update you all on where I'm at now:

I've since sold the 8X10 and a 5X7 is on the way. Much more cost effective to run and I can still very nicely scratch my contact printing itch.

I love my M6, it's small, light, stealthy and pretty quick, but most of all I seem to love the idea of it, moreso than shooting with it. It's a joy to use but doesn't quite jive with the way I take pictures so it and it's lenses are up in the classifieds here. Part of my decision is financial. I have a lot tied up in it and were I able to let it sit for when I get the urge to mess about with it I would but I can't right now. I'm positive I'll buy another M one day but it's not the right tool for the job at this point. It's not working as a primary camera for me.

I've also put aside the idea of a MF RF as my "notebook" camera. The close focus issues are the real deal killer for me at this point. I also really had my heart set on 6x7 as I'm not sure that 645 would work for me, mainly because I tend to shoot a lot of horizontals and all of them run the film vertically. The Mamiya 6 is an option but I'm not sure how I feel about the square format, I need to consider this more.

That said what I've wound up on at this point is my trusty Nikon N80. Small, light, AF, AE, pretty quiet, and built in flash. Paired up with a 35/2 and 85/1.8. I'll probably add a second body as they run about $50 these days and dedicate one to each lens. I also have a 24/2.8 that I use on my DSLR to give me a 35 so that's available for wide duty. Not as glamourus as a Leica M kit but very effective and useful. I'll be able to make photographs with it and as much as I love obsessing over gear, that really is what matters.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings on this, I'd love to hear them.


You may just get the best of both worlds if you go with a Mamiya 6. The square format is great, IMO, and fits a lot of life's images. Also, the 6's lens mount collapses into the body when not in use, which makes it a ton easier to carry around.

My mainstay is photojournalism, and I regularly carry with me either my M6 TTL or my Mamiya 7 II. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to sell one of them, I think I would have to let the Leica go. I love both of them dearly, and they both have their pros and cons, but every time I look at a neg from the 7 II, it still makes my legs go weak like no other camera I've ever owned. :-) My only wishes for the 7 II would be that it had a focal plane shutter to allow for faster glass and TTL metering, and that it collapsed into itself like the 6 does. Other than that, I think it's perfect, and I love being able to shoot either 120 or 220 film by just rotating the film plate.

[Svitantti]

I've heard that MF projectors are awesome, but I just scan everything these days, so I don't bother to have chromes mounted, not even 35mm.

/T

Well, projected image is completely different. I do have a 6x6 projector, but those don't cost too much. A 6x7 will be probably 10x as much.

One thing about MF projectors is, to use a glass or not... The glass will affect the image quality, but a 6x6 or 6x7 slide will not stay very straight without a glass I guess.

I would suggest everyone to try to project those slides once in a while to remember the difference... As in what does digitizing do to a film image (slide films dark areas etc.)

[morback]

I made almost the exact opposite move a few months ago (mamiya 6 to Zeiss Ikon ZM), and my only regret is the loss of the square format and the medium format feel.

But I can't say I regret selling my Mamiya6. It was too heavy to carry around and ended up not being used! I took my Contax T3 instead! I loved that thing (M6), it's just a phenomenal piece of equipment, but for a daily carry-around, not good. The lenses are slow and you can't get close much.

I now use the Zeiss Ikon RF, and I just love how tiny, light and versatile it is.

I wish there was a Mamiya6 a bit smaller and with at least 1/3 less weight...Maybe that new Fuji/Cosina 667?

[Turtle]

IMO the Mamiya is not an everyday notebook camera like the leica. I have both a 7II and MP and would not dream of carrying the Mamiya about everyday when on other tasks. The images are stunning and just what you want for landscapes etc, but really the 35mm has all thats needed for street type images and I don't feel the extra resolution of 6x7 brings a lot to the table here. For scenics, environmental portraits etc its another matter. The 7II is light by MF standards nut noticeably bulkier and heavier than an M. Much harder to slip under a coat.

My personal view? Wait, save and add a Mamiya 6/7/7II to the leica or commit heresy and sell the leica, buy a CV or ZM body and use the remainder to pick up a Mamiya.

If you love the 35mm FL on 35mm as I do, the 65 is the lens to get. Then 80 feels narrower and is. The 65 is like a 35mm with more top to bottom depth or a 28 with the edges cropped however you like to think of it. I still feel the 80mm has the performance edge but this is not worth worrying about. I use the 65mm the vast majority of the time and find it just works for about everything.

[RObert Budding]

I agree with Debusti Paolo. The RF645 is a great camera. Not much larger than a leica. Bigger negatives. Outstanding lenses.Built solid like a leica. A nice compromise between the Mamiya 7 and leica.

I sold my Rf645 and 45mm, 65mm, and 100mm lenses because I lost faith in the film transport. It was repaired once under warranty, and I read about too many other folks having problems. So now I am the happy owner of a Mamiya 7II. Great camera, but keep your 35mm gear for low light shooting. With sufficient light, the 67 negs will blow any 35mm shot out of the water.

The statement that a Mamiya 7 kit is bulky to carry around is preposterous. It's no larger than a 35mm SLR kit.

[Bob Michaels]

Just for grins, here is an indoor shot with the Mamiya 7. Shot wide open (f4.5) at I remember 1/30th with the 50mm lens using Delta 3200, pushed to actual 3200. I would not exhibit a print like this from 35mm Delta 3200 but from a 6x7 neg I don't hesitate. Of course you cannot tell much from a JPG but the print fits nicely with photos made in more normal lighting.

http://bobmichaels.org/South-Apopka/slides/Apopka-Mens-Club-inside.jpg

I shoot both the Mamiya 7 and a 35mm ZI about 50/50. I use them the same way. I occasionally look at a print from a 35mm neg and wish I had shot it 6x7. But never the other way around.

[varjag]

Just for grins, here is an indoor shot with the Mamiya 7. Shot wide open (f4.5) at I remember 1/30th with the 50mm lens using Delta 3200, pushed to actual 3200. I would not exhibit a print like this from 35mm Delta 3200 but from a 6x7 neg I don't hesitate.
But of course, with 35mm you could've used 35/1.4 at 1/50 with nice TMY-2 at 400 ISO..

[dar]

Weight difference is little, camera size a bit more, neg size lot more.

Considering the advantages of digital cameras I found my perfect combo in a Mamiya 7II (80mm and 50mm lenses) and a Ricoh G100 (useful to preview Mamiya shots, spot metering, macro etc).

I don't see anymore the advantages of 35mm film cameras. I've sold my beloved Bessa R3a for the Ricoh G100, it was very nice to hande, but a nightmare to scan slides and neg. On the contrary I got excellent results (view my photoblog at www.anafricanphotoblog.com (http://www.anafricanphotoblog.com)) with the Mamiya 7II negs (mainly kodak portra 160) and a flatbed scanner epson 4490.

[RObert Budding]

But of course, with 35mm you could've used 35/1.4 at 1/50 with nice TMY-2 at 400 ISO..

That is exactly why I still use 35mm for low light!

[Bob Michaels]

But of course, with 35mm you could've used 35/1.4 at 1/50 with nice TMY-2 at 400 ISO..

Yes, I could. Except:

The 35mm lens on a 35mm camera would not have the field of view to include the entire scene. I already had my back against the wall. I would have needed a 24mm on a 35mm camera.

The DOF at 1.4 would have been a limiting factor.

Now I am not contending that a Mamiya 7 is better than 35mm for low light work. Only that it is as usable because you can use faster film than you could get by with in 35mm.

[drolo61]

Ever considered the M6 (Mamiya)? Collapses nicely to make it almost pocketable. 6x6 takes some time to get used to, but saves vertical framing. Might be difficult to accomodate to the square format, but a very nice "double M6 team" (if you keep the tiny one as well ,-).

[noah b]

I recently picked up a Mamiya 7, I plan on shooting b&w starting out and color later on. I'm considering the epson v500 for scanning the negatives, and doing prints in my darkroom. I have both the 7 and 7II, and am not sure which one to keep. The only thing is the price difference.

[HSI]

I sold my Leica for a Mamiya 7ii.
It is a great camera, but if you are shooting
a lot of low light, keep your Leica.

[hiromu]

I recently picked up a Mamiya 7, I plan on shooting b&w starting out and color later on. I'm considering the epson v500 for scanning the negatives, and doing prints in my darkroom. I have both the 7 and 7II, and am not sure which one to keep. The only thing is the price difference.

I use V500 with my M7II, and like it a lot considering the price of the scanner. Since you said you do prints in your darkroom, I think you should be okay with V500...

Hiromu