1st shots with Mamiya 140mm Macro on RB67

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks for all the nice comments.

 

[analoguey]

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.

Interesting, I thought RZ was a direct replacement and they came after the RBs.

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

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?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

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.

 

[analoguey]

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.

Hmm. But this seems more like early morning? Or evening? I see the sky very blue towards the mid morning when Sun's harsh as well - my question was more from that context

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Rob MacKillop]

It was about 11am, if I remember correctly. The velvia is quite flattering - I don't remember the sky being so blue.

 

[Charles Wass]

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.

 

[KennyMark]

If you consider the view permitted by such a lens, a macro would be used from a greater distance from the subject, and a micro more proximal position. I too have only seen the word micro used by Nikon. It makes me wonder if the use of macro comes from some odd translation from Japanese, although that is purely a guess as nothing else makes sense

Oh, and Rob, nice photographs. Thank you for sharing.

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.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Kenny!

 

[MattKing]

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 .

 

[Xmas]

Maybe there are a few tiny differences between the skies in Scotland and India .

excess of UV in N pole but sky in Nepal should be similar.

 

[analoguey]

Maybe there are a few tiny differences between the skies in Scotland and India .

Well, I did see deep hued mornings here, and the question was coming from that angle plus with general advice I have received on using Velvia when there's subdued light available

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Charles Wass]

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.

 

[Alan Klein]

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?

 

[John Koehrer]

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.

^^What he says RE: Macro & Micro

 

[MattKing]

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?

The 90mm would give you the most flexibility.

The floating element in the 50mm isn't really designed to optimize in the near-life-size range, although it helps.

And the working distance with the 50mm is awkward when you are near life size.

The 180mm will probably work well as well, but you might not like the magnification you get, and may find the working distance will result in flattened perspective.

I have no idea what it would be like to work with the 360, but I expect you will need a really good tripod head, and lots of patience.

 

[k.hendrik]

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.

very interesting ! Didn't know these data. 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 !!!

 

[MattKing]

The RZ lenses have electronic shutters that are controlled from the camera body. That is a plus, but makes it impossible to use them on a body that lacks that electronic control.

And at least some of the finders interface with that electronic control.

 

[Xmas]

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 !!!

No you can only use the RB backs and lenses on your RZ the RB backs will fit on Mamiya press cameras as well.

You need the big compatibility chart.

 

[EdSawyer]

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

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.

 

[Xmas]

...RZ lenses are actually cheaper in many cases than RB lenses (more of them available, the APOs for example).

-Ed

Supply and demand is a two sided coin.

 

[fmajor]

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

I think another the reason for the co-production of RB/RZ systems was because many people were skeptical of the electronics and potential for battery failure (whether it be on a long, demanding shoot or outside in battery-defeating temperatures). Yes, there are work-arounds that we're all familiar with now, but that's like Monday afternoon quarter-backing (after the Sunday game) - hindsight almost always gives perfect clarity.

For my purposes, I (generally speaking) have chosen not to buy cameras which require a battery and chose the RB67 Pro-S for that reason. In hindsight, I wish I had chosen the Pro-SD, but I'm very pleased with my Pro-S all the same (even the 120 backs which need to have the light-seals maintained). My 35mm gear all requires a battery for some level of functionality (whether just for the meter or for both meter and shutter), but I tend to prefer the least amount of electronics for my film gear.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Nice pictures. Smoothe backgrounds (bokeh) produced by this lens. How did you scan them?

Alan, sorry I missed your question earlier. I get my film developed, and the negs scanned by a guy who specialises in such things, and is far better at it than I am. I agree about the smooth, creamy bokeh this lens gives - beautiful.

 

[dynachrome]

I got a #2 (82mm) RB extension tube in the mail today. I will experiment with it using my 127/3.8 on an RB67 Pro S. A 180 is on its way here. I will try to decide whether to get a 65 after that or a 140 macro. For hand held use I prefer my Bronica GS-1s but the RB is much better for closer work.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I'd recommend the 140, as it not only gives beautiful close ups, but without the extension tube can give stunning landscapes too.