medium format SLR help needed

[Andrew O'Neill]

RB67. No battery required. Nice big 6x7 negative. Excellent optics. Been using mine since 1992.

 

[Sirius Glass]

RB67. No battery required. Nice big 6x7 negative. Excellent optics. Been using mine since 1992.

The Hasselblad 503 CX and many other models do not use batteries and one does not need to wear a truss to carry it around.

 

[ruilourosa]

RB is a good camera, i worked with it.

Hasselblad is better

 

[Auer]

Format matters , at least to me. Square is always square, youre stuck with it.
6X7 and 6x4.5 has more flexibilty for compositions.

I honestly find 6x6 boring.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And if you like square, for variety, you can always mount a square format roll film holder that fits a 2x3 Graflok. Or anything else that fits that mount.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The Hasselblad 503 CX and many other models do not use batteries and one does not need to wear a truss to carry it around.

Never required the use of a truss

 

[tballphoto]

Never required the use of a truss

Nor does it leave you ending up needing a hernia truss yourself.. or perhaps one could find a used hover round chair on ebay, and attach a tripod on that to carry it about?

 

[Autonerd]

I'm a little late to this party, and having read all the replies... For what you want to do, I'd reconsider your choice of the RB67.

Im not exactly concerned about weight at all. My nikon D7500 weighs 1.41 lb / 640 g (Body Only) and my sigma 150-600mm contemporary weighs 4.03 lb / 1830 g.

The RB67 I use, with film back and 90mm lens, weighs six pounds. A heavy camera is one thing. The RB is more like a wearing a building around your neck. I can't take it to the beach -- it's so heavy I'm afraid it will affect the tides. Seriously, the RB is really a studio camera, and it doesn't just need a tripod, it needs a seriously hefty tripod. Having one wobble around atop that just-barely-okay tripod is not fun -- voice of experience here.

Having been dabbling in MF with a friend's C330 and RB67, I find the RB is better suited for setting up and bringing the subject to the camera, not vice-versa.

Granted, there are people who do walk-around photography with RB67s. There are also people who get turned on by having their partner beat them. These people might be one and the same. Don't say that to their faces, though, because anyone who does walk-around photography with an RB67 has the arm muscles to turn out your lights with a single punch.

With my eyes I have to put it on a flat solid stationary surface and get about 3 inches away from it with my eye in order to get things FOCUSED.

The waist-level VF on the RB has a magnifier which helps with focus, but not with speed. My close-in vision is just going south and I find I need reading glasses to set up the RB67. Remember you have to look outside of the viewfinder to set exposure. There's no built-in meter. I think the RZ67 makes this easier.

What id like to do, wildlife photography. And perhaps someday human photography. But the immediate out come id like is to sit on my back deck and get some good pictures of a baby deer and momma or a nice close up of a chickadee, and if its sharp enough, enlarge it out to a poster and put it on my wall.

For wildlife you need to consider available lenses -- something nice and long that can get you close to the wildlife. With the RB your choices are limited and expensive - that $500 500mm f/8 doesn't get you much closer than a $75 Nikkor AF 70-210. If you use a shorter lens and have to crop your photos, you lose some of the advantage of MF.

Also, it's a VERY slow camera to operate, and rather noisy, and not particularly quick to swing around and focus and set exposure and try snapping a pic, only to discover you forgot to remove the film blind or cock the shutter so it won't fire and now oh crap the damn deer turned around or ran away or died of old age. Hopefully you can make the first shot count because after the THWACK--VWOOT--SHHHK! of firing, re-cocking and winding the RB, chances are that deer ain't hanging around long enough for a second one. I would think that unless your animals are in cages or on lead ropes, you'd miss a lot of shots.

I agree with the poster who said you might be better off shooting wildlife with 35mm. When I need to capture a quick-moving animal, I go with my autofocus Nikon N8008 -- boring as all get-out to use but it's the quickest, most accurate camera I use. The RB67, much as I love and respect it, is at the opposite end of that scale.

Also, you only get 12 shots per roll (in my case sometimes ten, because the back over-advances, and sometimes 14, because winding and shutter cocking are separate and there's no interlock to prevent you from double-exposing). Reloading 120 is a pain in the butt compared to 35mm, and reloading the RB67 is a pain in the butt compared to MF cameras without removable film backs. Remember this was a studio camera, intended for studio photographers who had 2 or 3 extra film backs and breathless assistants to load them.

For pictures of people, the RB is much better, especially if you can get the camera set up then bring them in. I've only run a couple of rolls through it, one of which was a portrait of my wife and her horse. For that it was great, because I could set up, meter, then bring her in to focus and shoot.

Don't get me wrong -- the RB67 is a magnificent machine and very satisfying to use. But I find that for most types of photography, it's just too cumbersome. I do most of my MF with the C330, which is no featherweight either. If you're dead-set on MF for wildlife, ponying up for a 'Blad may well be your best bet -- though I haven't used one, it's smaller, and it can't possibly be any more complicated to use than the RB67.

Aaron

 

[tballphoto]

id love a 'Blad, but the most affodable bodies ive run across have small issues like "doesnt work, parts only" or its an electric battery one with serious rust and corrosion in the battery compartment.

Since I need something with speed, telephoto reach, which of the electric powered SLR MF cameras is the most reliable in this day and age?

mamiya, pentax, or bronica?

Or at the very least, what particular models are the best in electrical reliability? I see great prices on them, and well Id take a fully functional complete bronica and still only be half way to the cost of a hasselblad lens..

 

[Donald Qualls]

And that's the thing with 'Blad vs. RB67 -- you can buy a good working RB67 with a couple film backs, two-three viewfinders, and two-three lenses over the course of a year for less than a minimum Hasselblad (body, one lens, one film back, on viewfinder). I know, because I've done it -- I just barely crossed $1200 total spent on my RB67 kit with my last add-on (50mm lens), and I have 90 and 250, 2x teleconverter, both macro tubes, three viewfinders (waist level, prism, and metered chimney), left hand grip, 6x7 and 6x4.5 and a 220 6x7 (that I use for 35mm), plus a Graflex 22 for 6x6. Yeah, it's heavier than a Hasselblad -- but that's expected, it's significantly bigger.

 

[tballphoto]

And that's the thing with 'Blad vs. RB67 -- you can buy a good working RB67 with a couple film backs, two-three viewfinders, and two-three lenses over the course of a year for less than a minimum Hasselblad (body, one lens, one film back, on viewfinder). I know, because I've done it -- I just barely crossed $1200 total spent on my RB67 kit with my last add-on (50mm lens), and I have 90 and 250, 2x teleconverter, both macro tubes, three viewfinders (waist level, prism, and metered chimney), left hand grip, 6x7 and 6x4.5 and a 220 6x7 (that I use for 35mm), plus a Graflex 22 for 6x6. Yeah, it's heavier than a Hasselblad -- but that's expected, it's significantly bigger.

Thats the issue, "complete" Blads hit at 900$ to start, sure i found a relatively decent looking el body for 500, but its going to be at least 200 for a film back, 800$ starts the price for a lens over 50mm..

 

[Donald Qualls]

Exactly. You can get a well-working RB67 (ProS, usually) body with lens (usually a 90mm or 127mm), 120 6x7 back, and waist level finder for a little over $500 lately. I paid less than that for mine, with two film backs., but that was a year ago, before the good press pushed the prices up.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

One nice thing about the RB67 is that there are so many of them floating around, good press pushes their prices upwards only slowly. More rare cameras get one popular youtube video and the price goes to the moon.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And that's the thing with 'Blad vs. RB67 -- you can buy a good working RB67 with a couple film backs, two-three viewfinders, and two-three lenses over the course of a year for less than a minimum Hasselblad (body, one lens, one film back, on viewfinder). I know, because I've done it -- I just barely crossed $1200 total spent on my RB67 kit with my last add-on (50mm lens), and I have 90 and 250, 2x teleconverter, both macro tubes, three viewfinders (waist level, prism, and metered chimney), left hand grip, 6x7 and 6x4.5 and a 220 6x7 (that I use for 35mm), plus a Graflex 22 for 6x6. Yeah, it's heavier than a Hasselblad -- but that's expected, it's significantly bigger.

With a Hasselblad you get a lighter camera, a system, lenses, parts and service. Yes one waits longer between buying lenses, but then the lenses are better and one gets more joy and use out of them.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

With a Hasselblad you get a lighter camera, a system, lenses, parts and service. Yes one waits longer between buying lenses, but then the lenses are better and one gets more joy and use out of them.

There are two sides to this. I made the same calculation as Sirius and ended up going with a Hasselblad over the alternatives (RB67, Bronica S2, SQ, GS-1, Pentax 6x7, Mamiya C330) because it seemed like the perfect "do everything" camera that could stop any future GAS. Light weight and perfect lenses. On the other hand, it will never do some things as well as specialist cameras (spoiler: it did not cure GAS), and I really do prefer the silent operation of my Rolleiflex for family photos, or a compact folding camera or Fuji rangefinder for taking on a hike. I like the Rollei's 5-element planar more than my 7-element Hasselblad one too. While the Hasselblad is a fantastic camera, and everything Sirius says is true about it (and repair-ability is a big, important concern), in retrospect I think I would be just as happy with a "cheaper" medium format SLR (probably a Bronica S2) combined with a Rolleiflex and a good folder to cover all bases. But then again, I rarely use prisms or interchangeable backs. If those are indispensable to you then it's maybe worth it to invest more of the camera budget in the SLR.

 

[Donald Qualls]

in retrospect I think I would be just as happy with a "cheaper" medium format SLR (probably a Bronica S2) combined with a Rolleiflex and a good folder to cover all bases.

And you can buy a good RB67, quality TLR (not Rolleiflex, but how about a Kodak Reflex II or Yashica Mat of some stripe?), and a folder for the same money as a good 'Blad.

Honestly, folders are nice, but an RB67 virtually covers all the need I'd have for a TLR -- a little heavier, but a lot more versatile (or barely heavier, and still a good bit more versatile than even a C series TLR). And barely costs more than a Rolleiflex (if not a little less).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Honestly, folders are nice, but an RB67 virtually covers all the need I'd have for a TLR -- a little heavier, but a lot more versatile (or barely heavier, and still a good bit more

I think we might have a different idea of how much "a little bit heavier" is! Isn't an RB67 with waist level finder about 6 lbs? A normal (i.e. non-Mamiya) TLR ranges from 2lbs-3lbs

 

[Pioneer]

The reality of life is that most times you are better off saving up your nickels and dimes and buying what you actually want and need instead of buying cheaper and making do. If the Hasselblad is actually what will do what you want then go for that. The initial purchase will not be easy but in a few years you will have all you need and you will be happy. For me the Pentax 645nii is what I wanted and I have never regretted buying it. But it does use a whole bunch of batteries.

However, in photography, people sometimes claim that they like a "challenge" and that "limitations" fuel their "creativity." So they force themselves to accept all kinds of kludges and work arounds.

I absolutely love working with old cameras, I have hundreds of them, but when push comes to shove and I have to have results I manage to put up lugging around a few batteries.

I have been known to hunker down in a blind near a waterhole iin the middle of winter with a Deardorff 8x10, freezing my buttinski off waiting for that once in a lifetime shot of a Bull Elk coming in for a drink. I am willing to put up with the fact that I will only get one shot, and even then it may be blurred. The reality is that most elk are not going to stick around long enough for you to rotate the film holder to get a second shot and if they sense you are there you may not even get time for a first shot. But even with all of that I still have my Pentax 645nii and a roll of Portra 800 with an 80-160mm auto-focusing zoom lens attached so I am reasonably certain I will come home with something.

My advice is to go for the Blad and I don't even own one.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Isn't an RB67 with waist level finder about 6 lbs?

Depends what lens you have. I think the 90mm is the lightest, with WLF and 120/6x7 film back, I think it's just under five pounds. Put the 250mm on, and yes, it's a home gym and camera, all in one! But it doesn't seem excessive once you have a strap on it, and no, it doesn't make my neck or shoulders hurt. And if you want to do Ahnuld Shoots Film, get the 360mm (or 250mm and 2x tele extender), prism, and 220 motor back (with batteries, of course). Better mount the left hand grip, you'll need it.

 

[Autonerd]

Honestly, folders are nice, but an RB67 virtually covers all the need I'd have for a TLR -- a little heavier, but a lot more versatile (or barely heavier, and still a good bit more versatile than even a C series TLR).

Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm genuinely curious -- how do you see the RB67 as more versatile than the C330?

(BTW, C330 with a lens is about 3.75 lbs.)

 

[Autonerd]

Depends what lens you have. I think the 90mm is the lightest, with WLF and 120/6x7 film back, I think it's just under five pounds.

We're still talking about the RB67, right? I think you're a little light -- well, heck, let's find out. As it happens, that's the exact setup I have. Gotta break it down or it exceeds the capacity of the scale...

Well, damn, even the body overloads my little mail scale! Let me get a second one...

Okay, the body (including film-back mount) is 1285.4 g / 45.4 oz
WL viewfinder, 227.4g / 8.0 oz
120 film back w/ blind is 450.0g /15.9oz
90mm lens w/ front cap is 752.8g / 26.6 oz
Strap is 73.6g / 2.6 oz

Total: 2789.2 g / 98.5 oz. Just shy of 6.2 lbs. Pretty much six even if you don't count the strap.

Aaron

 

[Auer]

The price of the 67 is no benefit at all if the OP finds it cumbersome to use.

 

[Auer]

If you're dead-set on MF for wildlife, ponying up for a 'Blad may well be your best bet -- though I haven't used one, it's smaller, and it can't possibly be any more complicated to use than the RB67.

Aaron

Or a Pentax 645N, because AF.

 

[ruilourosa]

If price is an issue and someone could set their quality standards a bit lower, there are other cameras that can substitute hasselblad.

I also like the planar from Rolleiflex, 5 and 6 elements, 2.8 or 3.5. (i prefer the 3.5 5 elements)

Mamiya made very good lenses... I am particulary fond of the 50, 75 and 100 2.8 for Mamiya press.

 

[Arthurwg]

Prices for RB/RZ's are on the rise.....