Giving up RZ67 for TLR

[time4d]

I own a RZ67 and it is a great camera, but I cannot bear its weight and the space it takes up in my bag. Moreover, I do lots of travelling, landscape, outdoor portraits and the like.

In the past, I have used a TLR (Mamiya C220) to great success. I am thinking of selling my RZ67 and buying a TLR. Can someone recommend me a TLR that is not only good for portraits but also worth ditching my RZ67 for? My budget is roughly about US$700-750.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm sure the Rollei folks will jump in and I have a couple Rolleis myself, but I'd say go back to your Mamiya TLR's. A nice C330F Professional would be my first choice, but even the C220 would do just fine. Nice cameras, interchangeable lens, prisms and a whole slew of accessories. Plus, 1:1 close-ups with built in parralax correction to boot. Not as small or light as a Rollei, but much more versatile. Oh, I used to have an RB67 system and feel your pain! JW

 

[ajmiller]

Agree - buy a C330s. I use mine for landscapes, close-ups and environmental portraits. The standard 80mm lens and the 55mm do me.

 

[baachitraka]

Later Rolleicords...

 

[BobMarvin]

In your price range a Rolleiflex 2.8 C, D, or E, or a 3,5E or F would be good, IF you can live with just a normal lens, perhaps keeping your RZ for when you need a different focal length. I use my 2.8E for almost all my landscapes, only occasionally using a MF SLR. For travel it's my Rollei 2.8E, or a diminutive Super Ikonta A folder.

 

[snapguy]

bulks

The C330 is a great camera and will do what you need but it is rather bulky, too. I suggest you look at a Rolleiflex or Yashicamat with a 35mm insert for portraits. That gives you a 75-80mm lens with 35mm film, and horizontal framing. Just a thought. Personally I don't spend too much time in the field with a camera that is built more like a Sumo wrestler than a fashion model. (not svelte).

 

[Too old to care]

When I was a working wedding photographer I used TLR Mamiya's (C3, C220, C330F) and my boss used a Mamiya 67. I borrowed it for one wedding to see how it handled. It gave me a work out, just holding it, I returned to my TLRs with no regret.

 

[time4d]

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

I am leaning towards a Rolleiflex/Rolleicord because I'm hoping to try something new. That's not to say the Mamiya TLRs are no good. I remember the time when I created stunning images with my C220 which surprised even myself. People used to mistake me for a professional just by looking at my 12"x12" prints. However, I think I would like to have a go at a different TLR this time.

I'm not completely sure what the practical differences are between the numerous Rolleiflex and Rolleicord models, even after reading up on them quite a bit. Some people say that the Planar and Xenotar are unequalled, while others say the Tessar and Xenar are as good. Maybe some Rollei experts can help me with this? I would like a TLR with as sharp a lens as possible, and a possibility to change the focusing screen to a brighter one.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I've used a Bronica SQ for 18 years or so. Back in 2010, I bought an RZ setup and really got into it for a while, shooting portraits. The RZ is really a tripod camera, especially with anything longer than a normal lens. With some of the RZ portrait lenses the depth of field can be razor thin, even at a decent f-stop. That being said, the RZ makes utterly gorgeous portraits, probably nothing better in this field.

Eventually I migrated back to the SQ, though, because I love to shoot squares. Squares have a lot of inherent advantages over the RZ format. The neg is almost as big, you get 12 per roll instead of ten (which makes it far easier to sleeve and contact them onto one sheet of paper), and you can easily crop to your preferred format. I only shoot squares and portrait format images - never landscape format. With a 6x4.5 you have to constantly rotate and use an eye-level finder, which is lousy for portraits. Film is so good that even at 16" a little cropping has almost no effect on grain or sharpness. Most of my negs gets scanned anyhow.

You save quite a bit of weight as well with the square format. The SQ with a 80mm lens, a few rolls and a Sekonic Flashmate meter isn't much at all in a small bag, certainly no more than my Canon 5D with a decent lens. I keep an extra bag in the car with the 110mm Macro and a 50mm, and extra film. Keep it light, keep it simple and have fun.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have a Rollei 2.8 TLR, and I use a RB67 which I don't mind the size or weight even tough I'm handicape.

Jeff

 

[Paul in Arizona]

I have Rolleiflex 2.8C and 3.5E. Both Xenotars. I see no practical difference between them as far as operation. The F is the sexy and much more expensive model these days. To me the only thing you gain with an F is removable hood. Not worth double the price.

Older Tessar type lensed models will operate the same but not give you the lens performance of Xenotars or Planars.

If anything the fraction of a stop of the 2.8 is meaningless with today's film speeds. Also, any accessory -filters, hoods- for a 2.8 is Bay3 which becomes horribly expensive. The 3.5 uses Bay2. Doing it again I would not get a 2.8 lens.
Any C, D or E w/3.5 Xenotar or Planar lens would do you nicely.

 

[time4d]

Thanks. Should I even be considering a Rolleicord Vb? How much "better" is a Rolleiflex Xenotar/Planar than a Rolleicord Vb, in practical terms?

 

[Alan Gales]

I agree with Parker that the Mamiya RZ67 is the best medium format portrait camera out there. I used to own one and always used a tripod with it. I sold it to help finance my move to large format. I occasionally buy and sell film photography gear to help pay for film. I took in a Hasselblad 500/cm on trade and it was pure joy to use hand held. Of course the Bronica SQ that Parker recommends would be quite similar to the Blad and less money.

TLR's are great and excell in street shooting but with most of them you just have a normal lens. For portraits I like a normal and a slightly long lens. A moderate wide can also be nice in some cases too like when shooting group shots.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

One minor caveat for the SQ is that, not having been manufactured for about 20 years now, they are getting long in the tooth. The bodies are still great but the backs can get a little fiddley, and very few people work on Bronica gear anymore.

 

[Dan Daniel]

For Rolleis, you want a Planar or Xenotar lens, so one of the letter series cameras. All other Rolleis, including 'Cords, are 'Tessar-type' lenses. If you like the Tessar look, the Xenars on Rolleicords are excellent lenses.

The big factor with Rolleis is condition. Planar/Xenotar, meter/no meter, coupled/uncoupled, etc.- specific model variations are generally minor. By the time Rollei was making the letter series, the basic wind and focus mechanism was refined and hardly changed as time went on. This is the core of what you are buying- the lens, the focus mechanism, and the wind mechanism.

It is possible to change the focus screen on all Rolleis. On the models without removable focus hoods, you have to remove 4 screws and unclip the existing screen and install the new one, then reassemble. Focus alignment needs to be adjusted; if you buy a Maxwell screen from him, he'll include directions on getting things back in alignment. If you want drop and shoot simplicity with screens, you'll need a late model E or any F (or T, or Rolleicord Vb).

I'd suggest an E series.

And Alan Gales' post raises an interesting option- the Hasselblad.

 

[JPD]

Mamiya C330 with normal lens = 1700 g

Rolleicord Vb with Xenar = 850 g

Rolleiflex 2.8 F with Planar/Xenotar = 1220 g

Hasselblad 500c/m with normal lens = 1500 g

A Rolleicord Vb is light, has an excellent lens, bright screen and isn't expensive. You could even keep your RZ67 and use it for the special occasions.

 

[Xmas]

Film flatness is an issue with TLRs cept the Minolta Autocords and Mamiyas.

I'd go back to your old love.

 

[JPD]

Film flatness is an issue with TLRs cept the Minolta Autocords and Mamiyas.

I've never had any film flatness issues with any of my Rolleis. I have ten or so, and have had many more.

 

[Xmas]

I've never had any film flatness issues with any of my Rolleis. I have ten or so, and have had many more.

You won't necessarily detect it but eg AP detected a difference with the glass plate and without in their tele rolli tests - some time ago.

Indeed any of the roll film backs that take film over a roller before the exposure are exposed to problems. Hasselblad, RB67, etc.

Not one of these web rumors but that is why Minolta and Mamiya altered their film runs rather than kink before exposure.

If you are doing critical work wide open in cold weather you are at risk.

 

[baachitraka]

There is some test some where in the internet in which Mamiya 7 outperforms the rest of MF bunch. If you are concern about film flatness Mamiya 7 is the one you want.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Told you those pesky Rollei folks would show up. Just kidding of course and if you want to try a different TLR Rollei's are a good place to start. I have three 3.5E's, one 2.8E and a 3.5F and if I had to choose one to keep while selling off the others, it would be the 2.8E. Why, 'cause it's in rough user shape and it has a beautiful Xenotar lens. The others are in better shape and have Planar lenses. I might be different, but I prefer the Schneider glass and coating myself over Zeiss. I think Scneider coatings are harder and hold up better, but that's just me. The reason I have so many 3.5E's is because they feel into my lap at cheap prices and have only gained in value. Still, the 3.5E is one of the cheaper cameras with the "top of the line" Xenotar or Planar lens. A later Automat might also be a very good place to start, but for one in nice shape the prices seem a little high or just under some 3.5E's. Whatever you get have fun and it's bound to be lighter than the RZ67 was. JW

 

[Rick A]

Blatant self promotion:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Xmas]

There is some test some where in the internet in which Mamiya 7 outperforms the rest of MF bunch. If you are concern about film flatness Mamiya 7 is the one you want.

The good news is it is not that extreme

Most 120 cameras are ok.
Most TLR are at risk
Most backs are at risk

If you are in a warm studio shooting a film every five minutes and using f/8 don't worry too much.

If you wide open shooting once a week and cold then you are more at risk.

 

[BetterSense]

Why are Tlrs at risk?

My RB67 folds the film backwards so I can see how that would cause ripples but TLRS?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another vote for the Rollei 2.8 E. I have two E's. They are just fantastic cameras. Easy to hand-hold, focus, and shoot with. Both of mine have the Planar lens. I don't know if there is any meaningful difference between the Planar and the Xenotar, but the Planars are held in higher value overall, so I went with the lens that more people want, should I ever want or need to trade it in. I like having the slightly heavier camera as it makes it a little easier to keep steady when hand-holding. They're also cameras that just don't quit. They're pricey to service, but you can keep on servicing them forever.

I don't know where this foolishness about film plane flatness is coming from - I haven't seen any particular evidence of it with my Rolleis. I know Rollei made a glass plate accessory for the Tele-Rollei to assure complete film plane flatness, but that's more an issue for the longer tele lens where depth of field is shallow to begin with.