Mamiya RZ67 or MF rangefinder for landscape photograpy?

[Simonh82]

I’m looking to upgrade from my current MF set-up (Mamiya C330f) and I’m considering either a Mamiya RZ67 or possibly a Mamiya 6 or 7 (although this would be a much larger investment). I shoot mainly landscapes and general walk-about photograpy, family portraits the occasional bit of close up (although not serious macro photography) etc.

As mentioned in another recent thread I’m borrowing an RZ67 at the moment to see if I like it. The handling is really quite different from the C330, as you would expect and I’m not sure what I think about it at the moment. The C330 is a brick and I don’t mind carrying a fairly bulky camera around but the RZ is definitely a larger beast. Having played with the RZ67, I think I’m happy to say that I’ve ruled out an RB67, I think the extra lb of weight will make a difference to me.

The reason I have been looking at an SLR is that I have found it difficult to work with filters on the TLR. You can never be sure of the effect of a polarizer, or how much compensation to give if using one and I’ve not even bothered trying to use ND grads, which would be of real benefit to landscape work. I also think the lenses on the RZ would be a genuine step up.

The person I borrowed the RZ from suggested I consider a Mamiya 7. I am aware of the great reputation that this cameras and it’s lenses have but they are still hugely expensive. Mamiya 6s are a little cheaper but they are older and still far more expensive than an entire RZ kit even with just one lens. Going for one of these cameras seems unlikely at the moment but I’d like to know how others feel about them and their pros and cons for landscape work. I know I would gain significantly in portability but I would have the same issues with filters. They are also not great for close up work.

So, I’d love to hear from RZ users who take their cameras out in the field. What do you think about them as a camera for landscapes (on tripod) but also for walking around and using hand held?

Conversely I’d like to hear from MF rangefinder users about what they think of these cameras for landscape use. How do you work with polarizer/grad filters? Are they worth the serious price tag that is still attached to them? Is it worth me delaying building my darkroom shed build, probably for a year or more, for one of these cameras?

Just to say that I have ruled MF rangefinders with fixed lenses such as the Fuji/Voigtlander out. I’m probably also fairly set on the RZ if I go down the SLR route. They offer significantly better value than the Pentax 67 and I like the rotating back over having to work with the camera on its side (Bronica GS-1). I could be possibly be convinced by an SQ-Ai but I would need a good reason.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Kyle M.]

I have an RZ67 Pro with the 110mm 2.8 lens but I've only had it out twice so I can't say much about it yet. I previously owned an RB67 Pro S for about a year and used it 99% handheld, the only lens I owned was the 90mm but I was perfectly capable of hand holding it down to 1/30 sec. I never minded the weight of the RB at the time and I took it on several 2-3 mile hikes with no problems. The reason my RZ has only been out twice is because I recently ended up with a Hasselblad 500C with the 80mm 2.8, it's a lot lighter and the lens is amazingly sharp. The RZ has darn good glass as well but I think the Hasselblad has a slight edge. If you don't have a problem with 6x6 vs. 6x7 I would definately look into a Hasselblad kit. Yes it's going to cost more than an RZ, but will almost definately be cheaper than a Mamiya 6 or 7, especially the 7II. If you do decide on the RZ and can't find a good deal on one I would likely be willing to part with mine. Never used a MF rangefinder other than a Zeiss Super Ikonta Folder, a great pocket camera, and a Koni Omega which is a clunky, cumbersome device, though quite solid and with excellant glass.

 

[M Carter]

I've done a lot of handheld with the RB, though it's best on a tripod. Never got the RZ because I like the fully mechanical aspect of the RB - no reliance on batteries at all. And it's still much cheaper than the RZ to really kit out a system.

I think I'd fall into a depression if I had a Mamiya 7 and no darkroom… perhaps get a basic RB setup, get your darkroom going, and test and play for a while. Maybe you can find a local with a 7 (or take a trip to a friendly APUGger) and spend some time with one. For an investment of that size (especially one that would mean delaying your darkroom) it might be wise to do a little filed work first?

 

[Simonh82]

My darkroom is currently my bathroom and has to be set up and stripped down before and after each session. I'm hoping to build a darkroom shed in the garden soon. Anything about the £400-500 mark for the RZ will eat in to darkroom funds.

The rangefinders are probably unrealistic but would be great if I could afford it.

 

[Nathan King]

I handheld an RZ67 from dawn to dusk on a vacation to Chicago a few years ago but don't use it much off the tripod any more. I'll be honest and say I was tired at the end of the day. It's a tremendous camera for landscape if you don't feel the need for movements. I love rangefinders but never got along with them for landscape. I never can get graduated filters or polarizers quite right with a rangefinder. General photography? MF Rangefinder. Landscape or architecture? SLR.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to own an RZ. The "L" grip helps immensely with hand holding the camera. I highly recommend getting one. I almost entirely used my camera inside with studio strobes. I had a Bronica 6x6 and Pentax 645Nll for location work.

For hiking and doing landscapes I'd rather shoot a lightweight 4x5 field camera. A 4x5 kit can be quite a bit lighter plus you get camera movements. I love tilt for landscapes. With a 6x7 back you have the choice of shooting 4x5 sheet film or 120 roll film.

Just something to think about.

 

[gone]

I know you didn't ask this, but I'm going to say it anyway. The best 120 roll film camera I have ever used was a Bessa II (or Bessa RF) w/ a Heliar lens. There is just something about those lenses that is quite amazing, especially the way they handle shadows, skies and mountains. Portraits are even better. I'm not a landscape or LF shooter, but when I was in New Mexico (land of the landscape) I took some shots w/ both those cameras, in colour w/ transparency film, and in B&W w/ negative film, and they managed to capture a closer feel to the real thing than any other cameras I tried that with. The Bessa II had a coated lens, and the Bessa RF was uncoated. If you need some movements, put a Heliar lens on a Speed/Crown Graphic.

 

[chrisaisenbrey]

I prefer the Mamiya Super 23 for Landscape photography. It is a rangefinder, but I can also attach a focus screen. For example to adjust a gradient ND filter.

 

[jspillane]

If you are struggling with filters on a TLR, a rangefinder will have the same limitations. If you want to be able to see filter effects and changes in DOF, SLR is the way to go. I haven't used the Mamiya 6/7 system at all so I can't speak to it beyond that.

RZ's (and for that matter, RB's) are great cameras. I find them a little on the large side personally, and prefer a Hasselblad for field usage. As far as bang-for-buck goes, you will not find anything better than the RZ/RB. If at all possible, I'd try to get in a situation where you can try out a few different MF SLR's by hand and see which one clicks with you (Pentax 67 is also worth a long, hard look). Honestly, the optics in any of these systems aren't going to hold you back, so pick based on operation style and total cost.

I will conclude by saying that the C330 is an amazing camera in its own right, and you may be surprised how little you gain from the more modern lenses and SLR design.

 

[Simonh82]

Thank you, this is all really useful information. I'm glad there are people hand holding the RZ. The Photography department at work where I borrowed this from also have Pentax 67s and Bronica SQ-As. I guess I would be foolish not to try them out as they are there. I am very lucky to have this opportunity, so I might as well take advantage of it.

With regards to the C330, I think it is a great camera and I am a big fan. I also have a C220 body and if I got an SLR I would probably keep this and an 80mm lens.

 

[jimmyklane]

I’m looking to upgrade from my current MF set-up (Mamiya C330f) and I’m considering either a Mamiya RZ67 or possibly a Mamiya 6 or 7 (although this would be a much larger investment). I shoot mainly landscapes and general walk-about photograpy, family portraits the occasional bit of close up (although not serious macro photography) etc.

As mentioned in another recent thread I’m borrowing an RZ67 at the moment to see if I like it. The handling is really quite different from the C330, as you would expect and I’m not sure what I think about it at the moment. The C330 is a brick and I don’t mind carrying a fairly bulky camera around but the RZ is definitely a larger beast. Having played with the RZ67, I think I’m happy to say that I’ve ruled out an RB67, I think the extra lb of weight will make a difference to me.

The reason I have been looking at an SLR is that I have found it difficult to work with filters on the TLR. You can never be sure of the effect of a polarizer, or how much compensation to give if using one and I’ve not even bothered trying to use ND grads, which would be of real benefit to landscape work. I also think the lenses on the RZ would be a genuine step up.

The person I borrowed the RZ from suggested I consider a Mamiya 7. I am aware of the great reputation that this cameras and it’s lenses have but they are still hugely expensive. Mamiya 6s are a little cheaper but they are older and still far more expensive than an entire RZ kit even with just one lens. Going for one of these cameras seems unlikely at the moment but I’d like to know how others feel about them and their pros and cons for landscape work. I know I would gain significantly in portability but I would have the same issues with filters. They are also not great for close up work.

So, I’d love to hear from RZ users who take their cameras out in the field. What do you think about them as a camera for landscapes (on tripod) but also for walking around and using hand held?

Conversely I’d like to hear from MF rangefinder users about what they think of these cameras for landscape use. How do you work with polarizer/grad filters? Are they worth the serious price tag that is still attached to them? Is it worth me delaying building my darkroom shed build, probably for a year or more, for one of these cameras?

Just to say that I have ruled MF rangefinders with fixed lenses such as the Fuji/Voigtlander out. I’m probably also fairly set on the RZ if I go down the SLR route. They offer significantly better value than the Pentax 67 and I like the rotating back over having to work with the camera on its side (Bronica GS-1). I could be possibly be convinced by an SQ-Ai but I would need a good reason.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Simon,
I carry my RZ67 Pro II around with me every day....literally every day, as I take the train into the city (Chicago) for work and use the RZ for landscape/cityscape shots on tripod as well as walkaround/street photography handheld. Once in a while I find myself limited by the 1/400th top-speed of the shutter when I have HP5+ (EI400) in the back, but otherwise this is an incredibly flexible camera system.

I carry a small hard leather case that holds my RZ in shooting position with the 110mm f/2.8 attached, a small compartment with cable release(s), film, meter, and a few filters on the "bottom layer", and then on top I have the 180mm f/4.5, and #2 Extension Tube in padded velvet, and a re-purposed divider from my flight case that I use to both add padding and rigidity to the "top layer" of the case. I also keep a few various widgets and some lens cloths on top.

The entire kit can be brought out from case to shooting in less than a minute, or 3 if I'm using my tripod and have to unpack it as well. I've done street portraits of strangers, long-exposures of dark alleys, close-up detail shots of things I fancy, and general cityscape shots all in the same day on the same roll of film. Add that to the capability to switch film mid-roll and shoot Fuji instant film and hopefully you can understand why this is my absolute favorite camera!

I cannot speak from experience about the Mamiya 7, but I have heard that the lenses are even sharper than the (truly excellent!) RZ67 lenses... The specs and talk I've seen say that the Mamiya 7 lenses resolve as much detail as the sharpest 35mm lenses out there, except that they do so over the 6x7 frame! That said, I've had 8000dpi drum scans made of my RZ negatives as well as cropped very deep and printed large on silver and seen no lack of pin-sharp detail, so perhaps anything more is simply "chasing the dragon" in terms of searching for more resolution from the same strip of film.

Hopefully this helps a little bit.... if you want to talk more about my experience with the RZ, feel free to email/PM me.
-Jim

 

[Alan Gales]

Thank you, this is all really useful information. I'm glad there are people hand holding the RZ. The Photography department at work where I borrowed this from also have Pentax 67s and Bronica SQ-As. I guess I would be foolish not to try them out as they are there. I am very lucky to have this opportunity, so I might as well take advantage of it.

With regards to the C330, I think it is a great camera and I am a big fan. I also have a C220 body and if I got an SLR I would probably keep this and an 80mm lens.

Try everything you can get your hands on. There is nothing like first hand experience. A buddy of mine owns a Pentax 6x7 that he has used for landscape photography for many years. It handles like an overgrown 35mm slr. I don't care much for the Pentax. I prefer the RZ with it's removable revolving backs. My buddy hated my RZ. We are all different.

 

[MattKing]

With a C330/C220, you just need two polarizers - one for each lens. Just be sure to mount them the same way.

 

[CropDusterMan]

Simon, I'd consider a Fuji 6x9 with a 90mm...it is basically proportional to a 35mm and the
quality from the fuji is amazing. It's pretty light, easy to focus and easy to walk around with.
I can tell you from experience, the RZ is wonderful, and although I always hand-held it, it's not
one you'd want to hold all day during a walkabout.

 

[Simonh82]

Simon, I'd consider a Fuji 6x9 with a 90mm...it is basically proportional to a 35mm and the
quality from the fuji is amazing. It's pretty light, easy to focus and easy to walk around with.
I can tell you from experience, the RZ is wonderful, and although I always hand-held it, it's not
one you'd want to hold all day during a walkabout.

My enlarger only goes to 67, I also prefer the aspect ratio go 67 to that of 6x9.

Someone mentioned large format earlier and I've pondered this for a while but it would mean a new enlarger etc. and 4x5 enlargers are probably not easy to grab out of a cupboard and set up on top of a bathroom cupboard as I currently do with my MF enlarger.

My planned darkroom shed probably won't even be big enough for a large format enlarger unless I set it up on a very low counter, which would make working uncomfortable.

I never print larger than 12x16 so probably don't need the larger negatives. It hasn't stopped me lusting after a nice field camera though.

 

[Alan Gales]

My enlarger only goes to 67, I also prefer the aspect ratio go 67 to that of 6x9.

Someone mentioned large format earlier and I've pondered this for a while but it would mean a new enlarger etc. and 4x5 enlargers are probably not easy to grab out of a cupboard and set up on top of a bathroom cupboard as I currently do with my MF enlarger.

My planned darkroom shed probably won't even be big enough for a large format enlarger unless I set it up on a very low counter, which would make working uncomfortable.

I never print larger than 12x16 so probably don't need the larger negatives. It hasn't stopped me lusting after a nice field camera though.

An Omega D2 4x5 enlarger isn't huge, is well built, is plentiful and can be found cheap. http://www.jollinger.com/photo/cam-coll/manuals/enlargers/omega/D2 Condenser and Dichro.pdf

The main reason to go with 4x5 would be for camera movements. Of course using sheet film is a lot different than roll film. You have to load film holders with 2 sheets of film each. You also have to be more careful of dust. You can use a 6x7 back on a 4x5 camera also. There are also some 6x7 Graflex cameras out there that allow for some movements.

I sold my RZ outfit to go into large format. It was right for me but not for everyone. Sometimes I do miss the old RZ but if I go missing it too bad I can always buy another.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have brought my RZ into the field and it's a heavy camera. I even tried it with a prism. Very foolish because it was too heavy. It's a wonderful camera, but the camera is too bulky for me to carry into the field regularly. I think the RB/RZ was originally designed as a studio camera. Have you considered a Hasselblad? You're not going to get a 6x7 format with a hassy, but the savings in weight in bulk might be worth considering.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The reason I have been looking at an SLR is that I have found it difficult to work with filters on the TLR. You can never be sure of the effect of a polarizer, or how much compensation to give if using one and I’ve not even bothered trying to use ND grads, which would be of real benefit to landscape work. I also think the lenses on the RZ would be a genuine step up.

Especially polarizer filters. Go with the Hasselblad. I traded in my Mamiya C330 with 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses, Paraminder and every device for it in the known world for the Hasselblad and I never looked back. Go ahead, you know that you want to, so just do it.

 

[johnha]

The RB/RZ are effectively 7x7 cameras with the rotating back (IIRC you could get a Polaroid back that would shoot 7x7 images). Most 6x6 cameras are only 56mmx56mm whilst a 6x7 is usually 56x70 - an extra half inch of width. My choice would be a Pentax 6x7 as it sits in between the M7ii & RB/RZ. As I doubt you'll be relying on fast flash sync, the P67 lenses (not having shutters) are much simpler and likely to be more reliable.

When carrying gear out into the field, it's not the camera bulk/weight you should worry about but the bulk/weight of the bag and accessories you carry. By stripping out the gear you really don't need, you can carry a bigger/heavier camera without increasing the bulk/weight on your shoulder/back.

 

[mweintraub]

Simon,
I carry my RZ67 Pro II around with me every day....literally every day, as I take the train into the city (Chicago) for work and use the RZ for landscape/cityscape shots on tripod as well as walkaround/street photography handheld.
.....
-Jim

I wish lived in the Chicagoland area and worked in the City again... I'd totally meet for film lunches!

 

[Paul Howell]

My enlarger only goes to 67, I also prefer the aspect ratio go 67 to that of 6x9.

Someone mentioned large format earlier and I've pondered this for a while but it would mean a new enlarger etc. and 4x5 enlargers are probably not easy to grab out of a cupboard and set up on top of a bathroom cupboard as I currently do with my MF enlarger.

My planned darkroom shed probably won't even be big enough for a large format enlarger unless I set it up on a very low counter, which would make working uncomfortable.

I never print larger than 12x16 so probably don't need the larger negatives. It hasn't stopped me lusting after a nice field camera though.

You can get a Galvin View, 6X9 and mask it to 6X7, there is usually one or two on eBay. I had friend in the 70s that used a Galvin, shot both roll film and cut film, I think even glass plates with it, using Plus X or Verichrome pan she was able to enlarge up to 16X20 sold a number of prints, she was very good, killed in auto accident. Then there are Lindhoff and Horseman or on the cheap a 2X3 Crown, but not as much movement as a Galvin View.

 

[smolk]

After falling in love with the TLR (rollei), I ended up with the Rolleiflex 6008 Integral. It is magnificent. It has a meter (waist level finder or else), great lenses by Schneider and Zeiss. I have a 50, 80 and 150 with a 2x converter.
But it is electronic, and the company has just gone bust, so there are your downsides. It may help in getting a bargain.
I was set up for Pentax 645 with a great set of lenses, and a future in the digital cameras, but in the end I preferred my 6008 too much so I sold the Pentax w lenses.
I love the square. If I want to go lightweight, I take a TLR, but actually the 6008 w lens may be about your Mamiyaflex in weight.
One camera I regrettably could not hold on to was the Plaubel Makina 67. Great lens (Nikkor 2.8/80mm), light and small camera. But it's a fixed lens.