Mamiya Rb67 or 645 1000's?

[Donald Qualls]

Pentax 6x7 system. Significantly lighter and smaller than the RB67 system, both in camera and in lenses.

OTOH, the RB67 is (IMO) significantly more versatile. Switch films in mid roll, check. Multiple formats via alternate film backs, check. Multiple viewfinder options, check. Portable biceps exerciser, check. Fisheye lens option, check. Sync at all shutter speeds, check. No hot shoe on the body, due to shutters in the lenses, can't use it like a 35 mm SLR -- but I've got plenty of those if I want to shoot that way. Also, if I have a shutter problem, switching lenses gets me back in operation (working around the failed focal length) immediately.

 

[abruzzi]

OTOH, the RB67 is (IMO) significantly more versatile. Switch films in mid roll, check. Multiple formats via alternate film backs, check. Multiple viewfinder options, check. Portable biceps exerciser, check. Fisheye lens option, check. Sync at all shutter speeds, check. No hot shoe on the body, due to shutters in the lenses, can't use it like a 35 mm SLR -- but I've got plenty of those if I want to shoot that way. Also, if I have a shutter problem, switching lenses gets me back in operation (working around the failed focal length) immediately.

a couple of your points do apply to the P67 as well--I have 3 viewfinders for my P67, and there is a nice fisheye for it as well.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ah. Someone around here somewhere claimed just yesterday that the RB/RZ has the only fisheye in medium format for non-square negatives, and I was completely unaware that the P67 had interchangeable viewfinders -- only been about 50 years since I saw one in person...

 

[abruzzi]

I came really close to buying one once, but then I realized that I really don't need two fisheyes (I have a fairly uncommon fisheye for the Bronica ETRSi):

SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye Reviews - 67 Wide-Angle Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye lens reviews and detailed specifications. A fish-eye lens with an angle of view 180 degrees diagonally. This lens came in three variants with

www.pentaxforums.com

as for finders the main ones are unmetered prism, TTL metered prism, WLF and chimney (I have the ttl, wlf, and chimney) but there are a few oddballs:

Pentax 6x7 Viewfinders - Pentax Camera Accessory Review Database

Pentax accessory review database with reviews of flashes, grips, cases, bags and more for Pentax!

www.pentaxforums.com

I'm mostly amused by the marine inverted finder, designed to be used with an underwater/scuba type housing! that must have been a beast to use.

One thing about the P67, is Pentax really went all out with different uses. It has more lens options than most MF cameras (with the possible exception of the RB/RZ.)

 

[flavio81]

OTOH, the RB67 is (IMO) significantly more versatile. Switch films in mid roll, check. (...)

No doubt about it. It's one of the most versatile cameras ever.

But i mention that, as a field camera, I would recommend the Pentax over the RB67. And this is based on personal experience, i've owned both systems.

 

[flavio81]

Fisheye lens option, check.

Note that there's a fisheye available for the P67 and (imo) is less difficult to find than the 37mm Mamiya-Sekor.

Also, lenses are often faster due to lack of leaf shutter. I.e. 75/2.8, 105/2.4, 150/2.8, 165/2.8, 300/4, 400/4, 800/4 (lol, if you can afford it and carry it)

800mm f4 is equivalent to a theroretical 400mm f2.0 (!) lens in 35mm terms.

 

[flavio81]

I came really close to buying one once, but then I realized that I really don't need two fisheyes (I have a fairly uncommon fisheye for the Bronica ETRSi):

Hi dear friend, give me your house adress so I can rob it.

 

[flavio81]

One thing about the P67, is Pentax really went all out with different uses. It has more lens options than most MF cameras (with the possible exception of the RB/RZ.)

Yes, and it also had an official marine housing, however...

If Pentax really wanted it to be 'universal' or to have different applications, i don't understand why they only offered one (1) leaf shutter lens from ca. 1971 to ca.1980,

and then they introduced the 165mm leaf shutter lens, but then DISCONTINUED the 90mm.

So they essentially offered only one (1) leaf shutter lens at a point in time.

They could at least have added a 65mm or 75mm or maybe 70mm leaf shutter lens, so one would have a choice of wideangle-normal-tele in leaf shutter version, but no, they don't.

I always wondered why.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I always wondered why.

How many leaf shutter lenses did Nikon offer in F mount?

A camera with a focal plane shutter makes a leaf shutter lens a very specialized item, of quite limited utility compared to a (probably faster) lens in the same mount without the leaf shutter.

 

[MattKing]

The main market for leaf shutter lenses was the wedding market.
And the P67 was never big in that market.
My favourite "quirky" finder for the RB67 is/was the sports finder.
Because what camera do you reach for first besides the RB67 when you are photographing sports?

 

[flavio81]

My favourite "quirky" finder for the RB67 is/was the sports finder.
Because what camera do you reach for first besides the RB67 when you are photographing sports?

Yes, but, consider that sports were photographed with Speed Graphic cameras in the past... Many iconic sports pictures were done that way. Also, with the Rolleiflex (who incorporates a sports finder too). The famous Muhammad Ali shot by Neil Leifer was done with a Rolleiflex, probably using the sports finder.

The RB67 was introduced in 1970, we need to put ourselves into the context of those years.

Note that the Mamiya RB67 sport finder is one of the best designed sports finder i've seen... It allows you to easily vary the field of view by sliding the frame(allows the use of many lenses), and it has a periscope to take a look at the ground glass so you can focus.

If the Rolleiflex was good for some of such shots then the Mamiya RB67 was good for them too, i'd say.

 

[abruzzi]

With a flash sync speed of 1/30, the Pentax wasn’t really a camera for using flash. I guess the 90 and 165 were concessions to the need for flash in certain fields.

Oh, and while I’d love to have a 800mm f4, I’d need two sherpas to carry it—17.7kg. Most 8x10s are lighter.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh, and while I’d love to have a 800mm f4, I’d need two sherpas to carry it—17.7kg. Most 8x10s are lighter.

Good grief, an RB67 with 250 mm (and two more lenses and three film backs) is lighter!

 

[flavio81]

With a flash sync speed of 1/30, the Pentax wasn’t really a camera for using flash. I guess the 90 and 165 were concessions to the need for flash in certain fields.

Yes, however, indoor at night, this shouldn't be a problem. The ambient light is 3 stops (or more) darker than a normal battery-powered speedlight (at 1/30). And i've seem some soundly done tests that show that 3 stops of difference is good enough to separate flash from ambient light, even with a subject in motion. Very interesting test, in german, should have saved the PDF!!

Faster flash sync is good for outdoors, that's where it's the most useful.

Some days ago i was considering buying the 90mm LS lens, and really, all that I've thought so far is that it would only benefit me for outdoor camera flash effects.

 

[Paul Howell]

The only "real" competitor to the RB is the Fuji 680, maybe a bit heavier than the RB, not as wide selection of lens, but all Fuji glass is tack sharp, EBC coating are as good as it gets. Came very close to buy a 680 with 3 lens, had my AE out, then decided it was just too heavy for field work. My Crown and Speed are lighter.

 

[MrFus]

The only "real" competitor to the RB is the Fuji 680, maybe a bit heavier than the RB, not as wide selection of lens, but all Fuji glass is tack sharp, EBC coating are as good as it gets. Came very close to buy a 680 with 3 lens, had my AE out, then decided it was just too heavy for field work. My Crown and Speed are lighter.

The Fuji680 looks nice but if the Rb67 feels big and heavy this one is on the extreme!

Almost 9lbs and makes the the Rb67 look tiny!

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I love my RB's.

That said, I always find myself considering cheating on them and eyeing the Fuji GX680 occasionally on eBay. The tilt/shift feature is appealing to me. I also love the quality, build, and feel of two Fuji systems that I already have - the GX617 and GS690.

But then I always go thru the same internal discussion with myself where I realize that I want the GX680 for landscape/architecture shots and the RB is already a bit of a beast to lug around on hikes and city walks. And do I really need to buy another system of lenses? It's right about then that I close the eBay browser.

I worry that someday after a mixed drink or two I might end up hitting the buy button on one.

Jeremy

 

[MrFus]

I love my RB's.

That said, I always find myself considering cheating on them and eyeing the Fuji GX680 occasionally on eBay. The tilt/shift feature is appealing to me. I also love the quality, build, and feel of two Fuji systems that I already have - the GX617 and GS690.

But then I always go thru the same internal discussion with myself where I realize that I want the GX680 for landscape/architecture shots and the RB is already a bit of a beast to lug around on hikes and city walks. And do I really need to buy another system of lenses? It's right about then that I close the eBay browser.

I worry that someday after a mixed drink or two I might end up hitting the buy button on one.

Jeremy

After the Fuji was brought in the conversation I decided to look for details on the camera...

It's a beautiful behemoth! But polarizing when it comes to opinions, some called the worst camera purchase and some praise it as the best medium format camera ever made!

What get me worried on the Fuji it's the extreme electronic interconnection between components for what I saw on one of the video reviews... When it comes to electronics unless you know how to deal with SMT components if something goes bad the repair will turn expensive or impossible.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Probably a valid point.

Most of the analog cameras that I use frequently don't have any electronics in them (RB's, 500c/m's, Mamiya C220, etc), but I do use the Mamiya 645 Pro TL's quite a bit and it's not really a worry of mine. Sure someday they may stop working but I don't want that to be in my constant thoughts. I also shoot a lot with my Nikon N80's and F5's and don't worry about that at all with them either.

But I know some here are very electronic-adverse and it does sway their purchase/usage decisions.

Jeremy

 

[flavio81]

Probably a valid point.

Most of the analog cameras that I use frequently don't have any electronics in them (RB's, 500c/m's, Mamiya C220, etc

Some of the most dependable medium format cameras, that have proven their worth for decades, are electronic: Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 6x7, Bronica EC, Bronica SQ series, ETR series, Pentax 645 series, Mamiya 7... the list goes on and on.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Some of the most dependable medium format cameras, that have proven their worth for decades, are electronic: Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 6x7, Bronica EC, Bronica SQ series, ETR series, Pentax 645 series, Mamiya 7... the list goes on and on.

And some aren't. RB67, early model Hasselblad (good enough to go to the Moon!), Rolleiflex (the camera that dethroned the Speed Graphic), Baby Speed/Crown/Century Graphic...

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Some of the most dependable medium format cameras, that have proven their worth for decades, are electronic: Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 6x7, Bronica EC, Bronica SQ series, ETR series, Pentax 645 series, Mamiya 7... the list goes on and on.

Hopefully you aren't assuming that I am adverse to electronics, because I am not.

Jeremy

 

[flavio81]

And some aren't. RB67, early model Hasselblad (good enough to go to the Moon!), Rolleiflex (the camera that dethroned the Speed Graphic), Baby Speed/Crown/Century Graphic...

Yes. But what i would say it's the following -- if you want a reliable camera, you design it reliable, and this can be done with or without electronics.

 

[flavio81]

Hopefully you aren't assuming that I am adverse to electronics, because I am not.

Jeremy

Sorry, i assumed wrongly.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Sorry, i assumed wrongly.

No worries!

Thanks,

Jeremy