How bad is it to walk around with a Mamiya RB/RZ?

I have carried mine for miles and hours all over Joshua Tree in 100 degree weather holding it by the body with no strap or anything and it is fine. Unless you go out with 100 pounds of gear or are so out of shape you should be going to the gym instead of taking photos you should be fine. I carried it through horrible terrain through the desert with the 90 attached and about 6 rolls in my pockets and it came back fine as well as my back.

I mainly shoot LF but I love the RB as a more portable camera. I have had one for about 10 years and I carry it around a LOT. My backpack contains the RB, one or two lenses, two backs and various little things. Unless it is a really really bright day, I also carry a tripod. I would not simply carry it hanging from my wrist like a point and shoot. i use it on serious camera outings, both urban and rural.

However, if I had the money, I would get a Mamiya 7 tomorrow.

The Pentax 67 is "the preferred walking around camera"??
Really?

The Pentax 67 is no 'walk in the park' if you think so. It's 3.4kg with the firecracker (and street-smart!) 75 2.8AL and TTL prism. Then add the lenses. What is the RB67's/Mammy's weigh-in? Have you walked 6km with one, and a pack of 5 lenses? It's not all about the camera's own weight, but the whole kit and caboodle.

Old MF cameras are invariably heavy or bulky. And given the quality of imaging (in skilled hands) and application, it is the tool for the job for many people hellbent on quality (rather than just getting a snapshot).The RB67 looks significantly bulkier but not owning one (nor any wish to), that's for others to confirm or deny. There are a few RBs around in dealer windows that look quite boxy and awkward. Somebody on the Australian Film Photographer's Facebook page has picked up a Mammy ex-Japan.

Now, about this business of the 67 needing a tripod.
Personal technique -- what you are photographing and your preferred ballpark exposures (e.g. 1/8 vs 1/500 to 1/1000) play a role in whether you can get by without a tripod. Many people do use the 67 exclusively tripod-mounted. It's not a case of "who to believe and who not to believe", but clarifying what your technique demands. Obviously a tripod is not going to be a good idea on a crowded street where it poses a hazard to others.

Some observations. I have critically examined others' images from the 67 printed to 6x4 (!) and they've whistled Dixie until the cows came home how "really bloody sharp this pics are!". Oh? But are they? Unfortunately no. Evidence of vibration and movement is extensive when scrutinised, even if the negatives/transparencies look sharp on first glance. Images at 1/125 under loupé are emphatically not sharp handheld, certainly not thost at 1/8! I've compared these to my own where the 67 is tripod mounted. No problem at any speed. Yet amateurs persist in banging on about the 67 never needing a tripod, "...sharp at 1/125...", "even 1/4 sec 'cause I'm steady...". If you want the very best imaging quality this camera can provide (and desire to print to fill a wall, rather than a Wallmart postcard), mount it and use the camera methodically to achieve the best it can deliver. OTOH, if you don't care for (or your reputation does not ride on) the finished image, use it handheld, however you please.

Doc W said:

I mainly shoot LF but I love the RB as a more portable camera.

Click to expand...

That's the key! People compare the RB to other medium format bodies (6x6 and 6x4,5), but i feel it should be compared to 4x5" large format cameras. Because the quality of the negative, particularly with modern ISO 100 film (i.e. Acros, Delta, TMX), easily approaches 4x5" with conventional film (i.e. FP4).

You cite the mamiya 7, and it's a wonderful machine, but remember, it does not allow through-the-lens view, which is a significant advantage for many people.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Yet amateurs persist in banging on about the 67 never needing a tripod, "...sharp at 1/125...", "even 1/4 sec 'cause I'm steady...". If you want the very best imaging quality this camera can provide (and desire to print to fill a wall, rather than a Wallmart postcard), mount it and use the camera methodically to achieve the best it can deliver.

Click to expand...

I partly agree with you, we had a thread on this some months ago. Yes, the Pentax 67 is not the most steady (smooth operating) camera of all. The RB67 is considerably more steadier, vibration-wise.

However, there are people that use the P67 with the big wooden handle, and it seems that those are the ones who claim to have fine results at most shutter speeds. From the thread i've cited, i've come to the temporary conclusion that using a wooden handle should make a strong difference. I need to make tests.

As for the P67 weight, my P67 with the 90/2.8 is noticeably lighter than the RB67 with a 90/3.8. However, my RB is much quicker to focus, and quicker for film change. The viewfinder is better, and has no vibration.

It sounds like a lot (10lbs - I will have to measure to confirm) but really it's not that bad. I am used to heavy cameras now, doing a lot of LF and MF handheld. the RZ rig is no worse than a Speed/Crown Graphic with a fast lens (xenotar/aero ektar/etc.) or an RB SuperD with a Pentac... Plus the ability to just focus-meter-shoot with the RZ with prism and winder make a huge difference in throughput, vs. the LF handheld setups.

The ergonomics of the L-grip are good, particularly if you tighten down the hand-strap a fair bit. Also, there's a way of tilting the camera about 90-degrees to the right, which allows the film back to rest on the wrist area, which makes holding/carrying it that way not so bad either.

k.hendrik said:

I find this hard to believe; 4.590 kg !! including film/6 batteries and the 110mm; you must be a weightlifter. I'll try this tomorrow with the same setup

Click to expand...

I'm accustomed to "walking around" with an 8x10 camera, so a Pentax 67 is my "mini-cam" system. It's called exercise, staying healthy, and
fun. Sure beats running on a treadmill in some stinky gym.

DREW WILEY said:

I'm accustomed to "walking around" with an 8x10 camera, so a Pentax 67 is my "mini-cam" system. It's called exercise, staying healthy, and
fun. Sure beats running on a treadmill in some stinky gym.

Click to expand...

I went on vacation with the Nikon FM2n and came back and picked up my DSLR. WOW, that seemed so heavy. Same happens the other way. RZ67, SQ-A, Kiev, etc... then picking up the DSLR. WOW, that so light!

I just came back from a trip to Albania, where I stayed in a small village for one week. In this mountain village, there are no streets or roads as we might know them. Only small and steep paths with lots of stones and rocks and muddy wherever they come in contact with water. Wherever I went during those days, I had this Mamiya RB 67 - equipment with me: one body, three mags, two lenses (140mm Macro and 50mm); three extension tubes, two strobes, two different macro flashlights, lightmeter Seconic 308s; monopod (Manfrotto); Tripod (Gitzo reporter). I carried all this around within or attached to the tamrac expedition 8 - backpack. Allthough beeing heavy, this backpack is so well adapted to the human back, that it was no problem, to carry this load even during longer hikes. I used the equipment to take animal photos in the macro range, landscape and of the people living there. Here´s a picture while carrying the Mamiya equipment. My experience: The RB 67 and RZ 67 are well made tools not only for a studio, but also for taking photos in the nature.

flavio81 said:

...

However, there are people that use the P67 with the big wooden handle, and it seems that those are the ones who claim to have fine results at most shutter speeds. From the thread i've cited, i've come to the temporary conclusion that using a wooden handle should make a strong difference. I need to make tests.

Click to expand...

"Big" is right!
Two weeks back I bought a wooden handle for the P67 mint from Japan (AUD$169), but having played around with it, fitted it, looked at it and worked the camera with it (remembering that I use the P67 exclusively tripod-mounted), I have concluded that I definitely don't like it (!). I thought it would provide additional fine manouverability to the camera once (tripod-) mounted (can't be sure of this), but on the other hand, and most obviously, it adds weight, more bulk (e.g. the P67 will no longer fit into its "dovetail" quarters in the pack with the handle on) and definitely irks me as I set the camera up. In terms of mounting and dismounting the P67, Ii can't identify any advantage of using the handle vs the long-time set up of the abbreviated Op/Tech strap for haul-up and docking then wrangling the camera into position. I think the P67 is heavy enough (for me!!) without adding more weight. Good for those with a bigger and bulkier build than me...

I came to a similar conclusion regarding the wooden grip. With one attached, the camera would no longer fit in any of my camera bags. Plus, I'm trying to reduce bulk.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Nahh...

The modern Fuji GF670 6x6/6x7 folder is the preferred walk around camera, if you can do with only one lens.

No tripod required. Much lighter than either of the others (I have a C330S TLR), eye-bleedingly sharp, and with an internal meter to die for (I do transparencies exclusively for color), it's even pocketable when closed (providing they are larger coat pockets).

Only the price might be a concern.

Ken

Click to expand...

Yes, the GF670 is a whole 'nother world compared to the cameras being talked about in this thread. Tiny (when folded), ultra light, I carry both a GF670 *and* a GF670W (giving me 28mm & 44mm focal lengths) in a single Billingham bag. I carry both of these 6 x 7 cameras up to 7-8 hours during really long walks while traveling. What's more, half the time I carry a *third* camera, a Nikon FM2n w/20mm f/2.8 AI-S lens. It all fits, and is my ultra travel set up.

RattyMouse said:

Yes, the GF670 is a whole 'nother world compared to the cameras being talked about in this thread. Tiny (when folded), ultra light, I carry both a GF670 *and* a GF670W (giving me 28mm & 44mm focal lengths) in a single Billingham bag. I carry both of these 6 x 7 cameras up to 7-8 hours during really long walks while traveling....

Click to expand...

One reasonable solution - that's what I do on a small scale, carrying my GA645 and GA645Wi for travelling. Someday I'm ready for an upgrade to the GF670 series :joyful: ...

DREW WILEY said:

I'm accustomed to "walking around" with an 8x10 camera, so a Pentax 67 is my "mini-cam" system. It's called exercise, staying healthy, and
fun. Sure beats running on a treadmill in some stinky gym.

Click to expand...

Exactly! I am older than most of the folks complaining about carrying a heavy camera. Mind you, I tend to be a bit of a car packer (i.e., if it is more than 50 yards from the car, it is not photogenic) but I really don't mind lugging the big stuff around when I have to. I have often carried the 8x10 for hours, but the comfort level really has a lot do with the backpack. Even for the RB67, a good backpack is really important. It should be compact and should not be a top-loader which are really a drag in the field. You don't need a big one for the RB and accessories and it makes carrying it around all day so much easier. I used to carry it in a shoulder bag and that was really tedious.

macfred said:

One reasonable solution - that's what I do on a small scale, carrying my GA645 and GA645Wi for travelling. Someday I'm ready for an upgrade to the GF670 series :joyful: ...

Click to expand...

I also have a GA645 and often think about pairing this up with a GA645W version as well. I'm sure that this combo is even lighter than my 6 x 7's and would be interesting to shoot as well.

That depends on how pretty the model is.

If you have to walk a long way to take a picture of a dog against a background that you like, it is a very heavy camera. However, if you have to walk a long way with a young lady that is wearing shorts and has long hair and a great personality, it is not heavy at all. You see, it all depends on the situation. Why this is I have no idea. Ric.

I haven't read all the responses here but I have to chime in.

i purchased an RZ67 before owning a half decent tripod. I've hiked mountains with that camera, trespassed on abandoned property, wore it around my neck at the fair this week, with a tripod mostly these days but it sure as hell works handheld and not that bad to carry. Don't believe the haters, just learn to use it and it'll come with you anywhere you want.

Ric Trexell said:

If you have to walk a long way to take a picture of a dog against a background that you like, it is a very heavy camera. However, if you have to walk a long way with a young lady that is wearing shorts and has long hair and a great personality, it is not heavy at all. You see, it all depends on the situation. Why this is I have no idea. Ric.

Click to expand...

There is much wisdom in this!

GarageBoy said:

I know, the Pentax 67 is the preferred "walking around" 67 camera, but for the price of an ok body, I can get a nice RB/RZ set up - plus Mamiya has arguably nicer lenses (that 210 APO and 110 2.8...)
So, how bad is it carrying around one of these all day? Do I really need a tripod ? People have been saying Pentax 67s need tripods, or fast shutter speeds since day 1, so I don't know who to believe anymore

I guess if I need light, there's always the C220...

Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the'help' you can get from a monopod.I think they are highly underestimated

RalphLambrecht said:

Don't underestimate the'help' you can get from a monopod.I think they are highly underestimated

Click to expand...

Yep, agree completely!