Donald Qualls
Subscriber
Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm genuinely curious -- how do you see the RB67 as more versatile than the C330?
Let's start with the film backs: C330 is 6x6 and, well, 6x6. You can load 35mm, as with any other 120 camera, but as with almost any other, that's a kludge. My RB67 shoots 6x7 and 6x4.5 with Mamiya backs, and 6x6 with a Graflex 22 mounted. I can also (if there were enough film choices to bother) mount a 2x3 Grafmatic on the Graflok/Universal back (I'd get about 80-90% coverage of the film due to internal vignetting). With very minor modification (a strip of tape) I can load 35mm in a 220 back and actually use the lever advance and frame counter, and get 15 or so images on a 36 exposure roll, with reliable frame spacing (could be 17 if I put a leader on the film; still working on how to be able to change that film in the field without a dark bag). If peel-apart instant film were still made, I could put a Polaroid back on the RB67 and have prints in about a minute. With money and good timing (the equipment sells out rapidly when it comes up), I can do the same for Instax Square.
Wider range of lenses (37mm fisheye, 50, 65, 90, 127, 180, 250, 360, and 500 mm, plus the 150mm soft focus; 45mm and 82mm macro tubes, and 2x teleconverters from various third parties -- I wouldn't bother for wildlife). No parallax to correct when focusing at portrait distance (or much, much closer) -- and no-extras macro with a 90mm or shorter lens. With the metered chimney, TTL metering auto-corrects for bellows factor, and it's a fairly small spot.
And even though the shutters are in the lens, I can mount a pinhole body cap and use the safety shutter behind the mirror for the long exposures of pinhole.