Thanks for all the nice comments.
RZ67 Pro was introduced in 1982.
The RB67 Pro-SD was introduced 8 years later in 1990 - it replaced the RB67 Pro-S which had been current for 17 years.
The RZ series may very well have been intended to eventually replace the RB series, but not immediately.
With the RZ series you lost functionality in some areas, while gaining in others. It certainly didn't make the RB series equipment second class.
Lugged my RB67 Pro SD up the hill to do a few test shots with the 140mm f/4.5 Macro C, with extension tube no.1, and some Velvia 50. I love this lens! The Velvia is easy on the eye too. Hope you like them... If only I could put this camera in my pocket.
View attachment 78207
View attachment 78208
I didn't use a filter, and I've done no post production. I don't recall the sky being so deep blue. Velvia just does that.
Macro (or as is technically correct, Micro) lenses are generally designed to have a flat field of focus,
The only instance that I have ever seen of the use of "micro" rather than "macro" in this context is/was the designation of some Nikon lenses. In forty years I have never come across any other manufacturer or text that uses the term "micro" in this context.
The blues look lovely!
Which brings me to... the winter mid-mornings actually have quite deep hued skies - but how does one get that in Velvia on 120? ND filters? stop down much?
Any tips?
Maybe there are a few tiny differences between the skies in Scotland and India.
Maybe there are a few tiny differences between the skies in Scotland and India.
Macro vs Micro
I tried to avoid being pedantic in my last post, but it's clear that can't be avoided. In English speaking territories the accepted formal definitions are:-
photomacrography - photography producing magnification on the film/sensor in the range 1x to 10x
photomicrography - photography producing magnification on the film/sensor >10x
Hence the latter usually requires the use of a microscope. Of course most popular writing on the subject uses the term "macrophotography" or just "macro", but the writers always go along more or less with the above definition and never misuse the term "micro". Nikon is the only source of any confusion. All the other manufacturers use "macro", though unfortunately often for zoom lenses that focus a little closer the average.
Nice pictures. Smoothe backgrounds (bokeh) produced by this lens. How did you scan them?
Question I have about shooting close, something I don't normally do with my RB67. Which of my lenses would provide the least distortion: 50mm, 90mm, 180mm, or 360mm. Except for the 90, all are Secor C's. The 50 has a floating lens adjustment. Would that be the best to use?
RZ67 Pro was introduced in 1982.
The RB67 Pro-SD was introduced 8 years later in 1990 - it replaced the RB67 Pro-S which had been current for 17 years.
The RZ series may very well have been intended to eventually replace the RB series, but not immediately.
With the RZ series you lost functionality in some areas, while gaining in others. It certainly didn't make the RB series equipment second class.
But why didn't they made it interchangeable to the RZ ?? So can I use my RZ lenses/backs/viewfinders on a RB body ? I would love to have a full mechanical body next to the RZ ! At KEH there is a Pro SD Ex+ for $139,00 !!!
RZ67 Pro was introduced in 1982.
The RB67 Pro-SD was introduced 8 years later in 1990 - it replaced the RB67 Pro-S which had been current for 17 years.
The RZ series may very well have been intended to eventually replace the RB series, but not immediately.
With the RZ series you lost functionality in some areas, while gaining in others. It certainly didn't make the RB series equipment second class.
Supply and demand is a two sided coin....RZ lenses are actually cheaper in many cases than RB lenses (more of them available, the APOs for example).
-Ed
The RZ67 was designed to replace the RB from the get go. No doubt whatsoever. It was only later that they finally realized people were going to keep buying the RB (for whatever reasons) and decided to keep making them. I am sure they would have preferred to not bother, probably. But the money was too good, I'd guess.
What functionality was lost? None that I can think of. Everything was/is a gain - which is why it was designed as a replacement. the RZ is a superb system, and especially these days with the crazy cheap prices, no reason not to choose it over the RB. RZ lenses are actually cheaper in many cases than RB lenses (more of them available, the APOs for example).
-Ed
Nice pictures. Smoothe backgrounds (bokeh) produced by this lens. How did you scan them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?