Looking for Advice on Mamiya RB / RZ Purchase?

A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 0
  • 0
  • 54
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 54
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 4
  • 0
  • 57
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 2
  • 62
Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 1
  • 1
  • 118

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,790
Messages
2,780,868
Members
99,704
Latest member
Harry f3
Recent bookmarks
0

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,636
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Thanks for the info, I was wondering what three lenses should be at the top of my list! What did you use the 65mm for? Also, I suppose everyone has their own experiences and opinions on things and I'm just trying to create some for myself. I don't know why but I'm exceptionally optimistic of my handheld use of such a brick, I carry A tripod with me most days even when just using my EOS 5!
It's easy to hand hold with the WLF. I use the 65 for street and architecture, the lenses Mamiya made last both RB and RZ were jazzed up, some have floating lens internals for close range correction. I have a 50mm for my Hasselblads, with the floating element, it's truly spectacular. Some RB lenses are 50 years old, they can be repaired, but I bought one for my RZ 20 years back. I found a nice man who had trained in Japan, he was based in California. Even then the shutters weren't available, he made his own parts to rebuild my slow shutter, cost me 300 bucks plus the original cost of the lens.
 

Neil Grant

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
543
Location
area 76
Format
Multi Format
I've owned an RB67 for thirty years. I always use it on my landscape shot on a tripod. But this guy likes to walk around with it. He also owns an RZ67 so you could look for his videos on Youtube as well.

...I don't think much of this! The guy is wandering around with the film mag multi exposure tab pushed forward (and hoping he doesn't forget to wind on). Because of the RBs safety interlocks it's almost impossible to screw up. If you haven't got a left side grip, it's possible to use the strap to cradle the camera - making it more stable. Just basic, sound, technique.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,448
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
...I don't think much of this! The guy is wandering around with the film mag multi exposure tab pushed forward (and hoping he doesn't forget to wind on). Because of the RBs safety interlocks it's almost impossible to screw up. If you haven't got a left side grip, it's possible to use the strap to cradle the camera - making it more stable. Just basic, sound, technique.
I've been shooting my RB67 for thirty years and still double expose on occasion. The earlier models have no interlocks to prevent that other than a little red dot often missed in the rush of shooting, or forgetting where one left the camera the last time you shot it. He obviously was new to the RB67. He didn't know how to turn the back to switch it to portrait mode. But you can't miss his enthusiasm which is probably one the most important things about photography or anything else.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Firstly thank you so much, I feel like your response alone has certainly made the most impact on my incredible indecisive nature! Would you say it is worth buying the PRO II or would one of the earlier models suffice? Just that the market for a PRO II seems very inflated at the minute! Also, I love the 110mm lens from what I've looked at, however, supposedly the 127mm for the RB67 is equally as satisfying to some! I would love to hear your personal thoughts on this, also the photo of the dog has just made my day, I have a million photos of peoples dogs on 35mm, they usually tend to be my favourite thing to shoot!
I never used the 127 on the RB, so I can't comment on it in relation to the 110. There are a few quirks that make me want the Pro II, but like you I can't justify the extra price tag. I've been very happy with the results I get from my RZ Pro, so I don't think you'll find you can't live without the Pro II.

Another image to tantalize you - this was with the 37mm fisheye. It's very much a specialty lens, not for everyone, and not something you're likely to carry in your bag just in case - it's a HEAVY sucker

full
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I never used the 127 on the RB, so I can't comment on it in relation to the 110. There are a few quirks that make me want the Pro II, but like you I can't justify the extra price tag. I've been very happy with the results I get from my RZ Pro, so I don't think you'll find you can't live without the Pro II.

Another image to tantalize you - this was with the 37mm fisheye. It's very much a specialty lens, not for everyone, and not something you're likely to carry in your bag just in case - it's a HEAVY sucker

full

The Fisheye is an odd duck. It can not be used most of the time, so one has to develop and eye to find the opportunities. I have a thread with examples that others and I have posted to help people learn to see opportunities. Please post this photo there.
 

rulnacco

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
249
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Format
Medium Format
This has been a great discussion to read, if a bit late. I'll add a couple of data points that may prove helpful--the stuff at the end is probably way more helpful than the early bits.

First, I started with an RB67 which I bought as a kit from KEH back when they could be picked up *stupid* cheap (about 2010, if I recall correctly); I chose it for the fact it was a mechanical camera, and it and the lenses could be repaired by a competent repair person. And did I mention that it was crazy, stupid cheap? I took it to London with me (I lived there for 10 years). I used to use it frequently in the studio, and built a nice, fairly complete kit over time.

I later traded it in on a Hasselblad kit when one became available at my favourite South London camera shop (http://www.croydonphotocentre.co.uk) as I rarely took the RB67 out of the studio, and I wanted a camera I could use indoors and out. And it was a *Hasselblad*! I didn't regret that honestly, and still use that gear constantly.

Later, I came into possession of an RZ67 Pro II and a couple of lenses (the 127 and 140 macro) & backs for next to nothing. (I was at the annual Photographica event in May of 2014 in London, and the guys from Aperture--where I was a regular at the Camera Cafe--had a table set up. When I stopped to chat, after a bit one of them pulled a bag out from under the table and said, "Here, buy this from us, we want to go home!" It was the aforementioned kit. I asked what they wanted for it, and he was like, "Ah, just give us £400, mate, and it's yours." Sold!) I used that in my studio not only to shoot film, but I found a cheap Sinarback 54M digital back with RZ adapter, so I *mostly* shot digital with it. If you want to see what the 180 W-N lens can do with a 22 megapixel digital back, go here: http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg. I added on to that kit, too, and eventually had a very nice setup.

Unfortunately, in 2016 I had to move back to the US due to my father's illness--he was going to need my help for a while. I had to sell off a bunch of stuff to raise money for the move, and I had to make a decision on my medium format kit. I elected to keep the Hasselblad stuff, as again, I could use it indoors and on the street. So I sold all the RZ67 gear and the digital back. Got a good price for it which paid a big chunk of my relocation expenses, but *damn* was I sad to let that go! I'd definitely fallen in love with it.

Fast forward to last week. I decided I would use my stimulus check (Thanks Joe and Nancy!) to replace my mourned RZ67 kit. Unfortunately, prices--as all here have observed--have jumped hugely. I was determined to keep the price of the whole kit under $1400 if at all possible. And I've managed to do so, to this point, with some room to spare. So here comes the more germane bit.

First, KEH had an RZ67 Pro (not a II unfortunately--those are kind of ridiculous at present, when they're not a whole heap better than the original version). It was $412, without a WL finder and with no other accessories, in BGN condition. I grabbed it--I've seen that almost as soon as an RZ body shows up at KEH, it goes--and when it arrived, it was in very good condition. Obviously used, but definitely not ragged out--waaaay better than some described as Near Mint on eBay. I also snagged an Excellent condition 220 Pro II back at the same time for $35 (I have loads of 220 film in the freezer still). The back actually had a scratch on top of it, but it was indeed in great shape otherwise. So I felt I got a great score from Old Reliable, keh.com.

The 120 Pro II back was more expensive--I wanted to stay with Pro II backs for the light seal issue--and that cost me about $188 including shipping (about four days in transit) for one from a Japanese eBay seller. Advertised in Mint condition, it was. (As others have recommended, *carefully* read descriptions from Japanese sellers.) I also bought a 140mm M/L-A Macro (love that lens) from another Japanese seller. Advertised in Mint condition cosmetically with a bit of haze, I watched it on eBay where it was listed for $189 plus $40 shipping. The seller almost immediately offered it to me for $149, and I took it. It also arrived very quickly--most Japanese sellers use DHL--and was in exactly the condition described. The haze isn't so bad as to be unusable, and I'm pretty sure I can clean it when I get a set of Japan Hobby Tools rubber lens tools, which are on order.

I got another 180 W-N on eBay; this came from a Taiwanese seller, Shueido on the 'bay. He has lots of Mamiya stuff for sale, and I can highly recommend the seller. I bought a Hasselblad 553ELX from him for $400 a few months back which looked brand new on arrival (it turned out to have a small, but not immediately notable, mechanical problem; he offered to take it back for repair or give a $100 refund; I took the refund and had Hasselblad USA sort out the problem and give the camera a CLA, which it probably needed anyway). He advertised a cosmetically very nice lens which he said had been CLAed and had pristine glass, for $109 plus shipping. I offered $90 and he accepted it. The lens did have a blemish or two on the outside, but the glass was as good as advertised. Again, very fast DHL shipping.

I got a very nice WL finder off eBay from Wings Camera in Atlanta, where I'd bought loads of stuff in-store when I lived in the ATL. I didn't bother bidding, did the Buy It Now option, $128 including shipping. And I've got two extension tubes (#1 for $44 from a Japanese seller--regretfully, I later found another seller offering it cheaper--and #2 for $19 from the US) and a Polaroid back--I still have *five* boxes of FP100C in the fridge--from another US seller on eBay for under $40 including shipping.

Unfortunately, the other two lenses I've got my eye on to give me a good spread of focal lengths are *really* expensive right now. I'm wanting the 90mm as my "normal" lens, but it's silly costly, and the 50mm (non-ULD) is not so bad, but still pretty expensive. I'll have to wait on those.

So, if you don't mind (1) keeping your eyes constantly open, (2) buying from international sellers, and (3) assembling your own kit from a variety of sources instead of buying it all in one go--full kits seem to sell for a significant premium--it's *possible* to assemble a reasonably priced kit for portraiture and closeups at least.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
So, if you don't mind (1) keeping your eyes constantly open, (2) buying from international sellers, and (3) assembling your own kit from a variety of sources instead of buying it all in one go--full kits seem to sell for a significant premium--it's *possible* to assemble a reasonably priced kit for portraiture and closeups at least.

Second that. I bought my RB67 with 90mm lens, 6x7 and 6x4.5 120 film backs, and waist level finder from a Japanese seller for under $500 just about a year ago, and was very happy with what I got. Since then I've added the prism finder, metered chimney, a 220 6x7 back (intended mainly for 35mm panoramic) and Graflex 22 (6x6 for 2x3 Graflok mount), 50mm and 250mm lenses, 2x teleconverter, and left hand grip, and have just barely above $1200 into the kit over the course of a year. I'll keep watching for the other lenses I want (65, 127, and 180) for good prices, but what I have works very well so far.
 

Neil Poulsen

Member
Joined
May 28, 2005
Messages
520
Format
4x5 Format
After purchasing several bodies several years ago, I was faced with the same question. I had decided on the RZ system, but was warmed off by a camera repairman. He said that RB67 cameras were much more reliable than the RZ cameras. I took his advice.
 

shutterlight

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
164
Location
Arizona
Format
Medium Format
Unfortunately, the other two lenses I've got my eye on to give me a good spread of focal lengths are *really* expensive right now. I'm wanting the 90mm as my "normal" lens, but it's silly costly, and the 50mm (non-ULD) is not so bad, but still pretty expensive. I'll have to wait on those.

I got the 90 at the beginning, based in part off my experience with an 80mm on the Mamiya 7. The 110 seemed too long for me, and two years of experience haven't changed my mind on that. If anything, the 90 seems just right for me now.
 

tballphoto

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
264
Location
usa
Format
35mm
when you realize the RZ is normally 900+ on the bay of fleas, its not worth it unless you happen to have the digital back to use on it.

Otherwise get ANY of them. The rotating flim back seems sexy and all, but its not hard to hold one on its side.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
OR shot a Hasselblad or other 6x6 and the need for a rotating back vaporizes.
 

M Carter

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
2,147
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Medium Format
OR shot a Hasselblad or other 6x6 and the need for a rotating back vaporizes.

But if you shoot mostly non-square aspect ratios, might as well just buy a 645 vs. cropping all those 6x6 shots. I like negs as big as possible (I seem to use masking with most every print), the RB has been great for me for about 20+ years. To each their own I suppose!
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
But if you shoot mostly non-square aspect ratios, might as well just buy a 645 vs. cropping all those 6x6 shots. I like negs as big as possible (I seem to use masking with most every print), the RB has been great for me for about 20+ years. To each their own I suppose!

I like negatives as large as possible so I would never use a 645 format. To me it is too long just like 35mm.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
I like negatives as large as possible so I would never use a 645 format. To me it is too long just like 35mm.

Seriously? 645 is roughly 3:4 (42x56), same ratio as 35mm half frame; much "squarer" than the 3:2 (24x36) of 35mm, not to mention about three times the area. But, if that's too "long" you could shoot 6x7; at 56x70 (at least in my RB67) it's virtually the same as 4x5. Still distinctly "not square" but about the "shortest" "not square" going.

Personally, I like half frame, 645, 6x6, and 6x7/4x5 -- as well as 35mm and 6x9. Just require shifting mental gears when you're composing (helps to have a correct ratio viewfinder).
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom