Need help making gear choice: get an RZ67 bundle or sink more $$ into the RB?

[paul ron]

I see 50mm lenses for sale on KEH in BGN for less than an RZ setup. Besides the RB stuff is much sturdier n easier to repair plus you already have one.

Go get a 50mm, you'll love it to death!

 

[kodachrome64]

I recently bought a bgn rz67 (and a bgn toyo 45aii--big spender!) from keh. The rz67 arrived in better condition than the toyo, with one knob showing major brassing but the rest is in essentially excellent condition. Functionally, it seems perfect, with the occasional weird quirk but nothing so far that isn't likely ascribed to user error.

I love the rz67, but may have to sell it to finance the ridiculous expense of shooting large format. I've never used the rb67, though.

I can post some photos tomorrow if you want to see what a keh bgn camera looks like. I imagine every camera from keh is different, though--luck of the draw.

Of the three lenses I have (110mm f2.8; 65mm f4 m-la; 50mm f4.5 uld), the 65mm is the sharpest and the only lens for which a direct optical corollary is available for the rb67 (the 65mm kl). That said, the 110mm is impressive wide open and the 50mm is no slouch, either: wonderful corner to corner, but still not quite as sharp as the 65mm, though it's very, very close.

I really like the rz67 and recommend it if you keep shooting film, but I imagine the value of the rz67 and its lenses will only continue to plummet, sad thought it makes me to admit it. And if I had the money of course I'd prefer a Hasselblad for its smaller size and super cool Ziess lenses, but I don't have the money.

Sure, some pictures of your rig would be great if you get a chance. Thanks for sharing your experience!

 

[23mjm]

Maybe I missed this--BUT what does the RZ get you that the RB doesn't other than the ability to put a battery in the camera. I have shot a RB for 10 years and the camera body has never failed to deliver. Good old mechanical simplicity. Some have stated that the RZ lenses are better, which on paper may be true but there has never been a softness problem with the RB lenses I use. (50mmC, 90mmC, & 250mmC)

I say just get a 50mmC and keep using the RB it is a tried and true workhorse of a camera. Bang for the buck.

 

[TimmyMac]

Maybe I missed this--BUT what does the RZ get you that the RB doesn't other than the ability to put a battery in the camera. I have shot a RB for 10 years and the camera body has never failed to deliver. Good old mechanical simplicity. Some have stated that the RZ lenses are better, which on paper may be true but there has never been a softness problem with the RB lenses I use. (50mmC, 90mmC, & 250mmC)

I say just get a 50mmC and keep using the RB it is a tried and true workhorse of a camera. Bang for the buck.

RZ gets you the 110/2.8 and the 50 ULD - in my opinion both valid reasons to get one! It's also a little lighter, doesn't require regular shutter CLAs and you can use the AE prism if that's your thing.

 

[paul ron]

No and less RZ repairs becuase they get thrown out when they breakdown.

What is the oldest RZ on the road? now think real hard... how many 35yr old RBs are still being used today?

 

[kodachrome64]

Maybe I missed this--BUT what does the RZ get you that the RB doesn't other than the ability to put a battery in the camera.

In the long run it will be cheaper to get the high-quality RZ glass that I need (at least the ones I'm looking for). That was my main motivator - knowing that I need to buy a few lenses soon and found that the RZ lenses are cheaper in many cases. Other benefits of the RZ I have found:

• Electronic shutters in lenses (more likely to get accurate exposure; mechanical shutters of RB lenses are a big variable)
• One cocking/winding motion instead of two separate ones
• A fast normal lens available (my work is not in studio)
• Auto exposure available if desired
• Can take RB lenses/backs (with adapter) if desired
• Lighter, of course

Those are just some of the benefits I've seen that would apply to me and how I use the camera. I can see being in a studio setting or being a repair guy preferring the all-mechanical operation of the RB. I've seen many people say that lenses are much cheaper for the RB, but I've found the difference to be the other way around for the ones I've been looking at (KL lenses vs the Sekor Z).

 

[EdSawyer]

There's an endless number of reasons the RZ is better than the RB. Hell, Mamiya made it as an upgrade/replacement for the RB - they didn't just do that for giggles. They thought it was better. (though I don't know why they continue to make the RB... nostalgia maybe?)

Parts are still available for the RZ (plus its still being made of course) - parts for RB stuff is in shorter supply.

Working on the RZ glass is just as easy as RB. I've had several of the lenses apart for various reasons, they are all quite straightforward so far. Certainly easier to deal with than any modern 35mm AF lens.

Prices at KEH are generally a bit high overall, vs. what the open market will bear. They are a decent place to buy stuff but generally prices are cheaper on Ebay and elsewhere. KEH has a decent return policy though, so that's in their favor. And occasionally bargains do appear.

Price-wise I think RZ and RB stuff has about bottomed. If anything it might go up someday(?!) if a full frame 6x7 digital back is ever invented.

re: ease of use / unfamiliar camera - if you can figure out an RB, an RZ is easy. It has more interlocks so prevents more problems. Once you play with it a bit it will be quite familiar I think.

Re: Mamiya 7 - that's a fantastic system too. In general I think the lenses are a touch sharper, but as mentioned the 50 ULD, 65 L/A, 110 on the RZ are all really damn fine. So are all the APO teles. I have been printing stuff from both systems the last few days, and overall it's hard to tell them apart, as far as sharpness. They aren't really a replacement for each other, since the RZ does a lot of things the 7 can't do: Close ups, telephoto, fisheye, tight headshots, motor drive, tilt/shift, etc.

On equal ground, the 7 is better in some ways, but for the above reasons, the RZ is a useful rig too. I have both and use them for different purposes and like the results from both a whole lot.


-Ed

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I would go for the 50C on the RB 67.

Jeff

 

[2F/2F]

The RZ is a better camera when you need to work a little bit faster while shooting, or if you want to use the 110mm f/2.8 lens. I have an RZ, but I would advise you to stick with the RB, since what you are shooting does not sound like it would benefit from use of an RZ. I prefer the RZ for shooting people, for shooting hand held, and for shooting things that are moving, but or anything else, the RB would do just as well. The very first thing I would get would be the 75mm shift lens, followed by a prism, and then more backs.

Based on diagonal AOVs, the 110mm lens on 6x7 is closest to a 50mm lens on small format (about 15 percent longer than normal), and the 90mm is closest to a "true" normal lens (which would be about 43mm on small format).

 

[kodachrome64]

The RZ is a better camera when you need to work a little bit faster while shooting, or if you want to use the 110mm f/2.8 lens. I have an RZ, but I would advise you to stick with the RB, since what you are shooting does not sound like it would benefit from use of an RZ. I prefer the RZ for shooting people, for shooting hand held, and for shooting things that are moving, but or anything else, the RB would do just as well. The very first thing I would get would be the 75mm shift lens, followed by a prism, and then more backs.

Based on diagonal AOVs, the 110mm lens on 6x7 is closest to a 50mm lens on small format (about 15 percent longer than normal), and the 90mm is closest to a "true" normal lens (which would be about 43mm on small format).

Maybe I didn't mention it, but I mostly shoot people (portraits and some street). Landscape/architecture is not a very high percentage of what I do.

Obviously for landscape work the faster operation of the RZ and the fast 110mm lens wouldn't be much help. Those things appeal to me more for the shooting I usually do.

 

[fmajor]

I think if you're really inclined to buy an RZ, then do it. However, when i (recently!) began moving into this format i took the time and bought component by component and have an excellent condition RB set up for $300. I'd suggest the same approach. If time is not on your side, i'd still encourage buying as high quality as you can't afford. You only cry once and then enjoy your purchase for years confident it was the best available.

I don't think you're going to hear a case whereby the RB is thrown aside enmasse for the RZ. The poll certainly does not show that, but polls are the opinions of others and not you the buyer. Whether or not they are excellent, well-founded opinions or utter idiocy - it really makes no difference b/c you're the buyer and at the end of the day you're the dude who either loves your camera or not. Buy what you *really* want - these aren't Bentley's.

It seems to me like you're prefering a nicer RZ with the lens flexibility it provides for. Seems a no-brainer.

 

[Curt]

Sell or trade the RB in for the RZ kit.

 

[CGW]

Maybe I didn't mention it, but I mostly shoot people (portraits and some street). Landscape/architecture is not a very high percentage of what I do.

Obviously for landscape work the faster operation of the RZ and the fast 110mm lens wouldn't be much help. Those things appeal to me more for the shooting I usually do.

That "fast" 110/2.8 lens really isn't that much faster than a 3.5, especially since these lenses aren't shot wide open that often, thanks to their thin DOF. Maybe a slightly brighter viewfinder but "speed" really doesn't count for much more.

 

[TimmyMac]

That "fast" 110/2.8 lens really isn't that much faster than a 3.5, especially since these lenses aren't shot wide open that often, thanks to their thin DOF. Maybe a slightly brighter viewfinder but "speed" really doesn't count for much more.

I shoot the 110 wide open probably 40-50% of the time. It's 3/4 stop over the 3.5 lenses, definitely an asset when you're shooting handheld as I often do, and I would damn near kill for a Zeiss 110/2.

 

[2F/2F]

Sounds like your mind is made up, though I cannot say I understand. How, when on a limited budget, will another body with a lens of similar focal length to the one you already have help you to fulfill the requirements of your commission? In the end, you will have nothing much different than what you already have, and still will not have what you need to get your job done. This one is a no brainer.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Nick;

I sold my RB when I got the RZ. It is a huge upgrade when you think about everything. I love it. All of the lenses are great, the tilt and swing are great and the options are great. Don't look back. I just wish that Kodachrome was available in 120!

PE

 

[EdSawyer]

110mm f/2 would *rule*. As it is the 2.8 is pretty sweet, but f/2 - that would be truly something. Even wide open the 2.8 is quite sharp and very consistent across the frame and into the corners.

 

[kodachrome64]

How, when on a limited budget, will another body with a lens of similar focal length to the one you already have help you to fulfill the requirements of your commission? In the end, you will have nothing much different than what you already have, and still will not have what you need to get your job done. This one is a no brainer.

I wasn't clear about the budget...I can swing the extra ~$200 for the 50mm lens I need. My plan is to get the RZ kit and the 50mm lens.

I had always thought that RB glass would be a lot cheaper than the newer RZ glass. After really looking into it for the first time I was quite surprised to find that it wasn't really the case. I guess something just feels wrong to me to pay more (or even the same price) for inferior glass. I figured that if I can swing the extra money for an additional wide lens, I would be making a more long-term decision.

The biggest investment in camera systems is usually the glass, and I feel that buying RZ glass will be a better use of my money. The camera solves a couple of the issues I have with the RB (inconsistent exposure among lenses, two-motion cocking, etc) and I think I would be money ahead going into it now rather than later, especially if this job will more than pay for the gear.

I realize a lot of people disagree and the RB67 seems to be generally more liked on this forum than the RZ67, but I gained a lot of insight from the comments. Several good arguments were made against the RZ67 system and it helped me make sure I was thinking about everything. The downsides of the RZ that most presented would not be downsides for me. I do definitely agree that it would be a bad choice if I only had $300 to spend and chose to spend it on a new camera that still did not have the lens I needed.

I think perhaps I incorrectly framed the question to suggest that I could spend either on a 50mm lens or an RZ67 with a 90mm lens. Since I can do both, I think I'll be happy with the choice.

 

[kodachrome64]

Nick;

I sold my RB when I got the RZ. It is a huge upgrade when you think about everything. I love it. All of the lenses are great, the tilt and swing are great and the options are great. Don't look back. I just wish that Kodachrome was available in 120!

PE

Hi PE,

Thanks for your experience. I think the RZ will be a great upgrade for me and will renew my zeal for medium format! I'm glad I had held off on buying accessories for my RB. Hmmm tilt and swing...

Oh how I wish I could have shot Kodachrome in 120! I envy you that at least you were able to experience the great film in its heyday. Mama did take our Kodachrome away, but at least she gave us Ektar 100 in 120! I'm loving that film.

 

[picker77]

Maybe I didn't mention it, but I mostly shoot people (portraits and some street).

If you shoot people on the street with an RB67, you don't need another camera, you need a bodyguard. Not exactly an unobtrusive camera, LOL.

 

[Marc B.]

I'm probably biased towards the RZ, as that is my favorite. I have never experienced battery drain issues with my RZ's. A moot point that some mention as a deterrent to acquiring a RZ, ridiculously favoring the RB on that point alone. There are times I prefer to use auto exposure; not available with the RB. Then, as mentioned, the RZ allows use of the 110mm, the 50mm ULD, the 210 APO, and the tilt-shift adapter. All with auto exposure if needed.
Big pluses in my book. A small, separate advantage with the RZ, is the single cocking lever, small issue, but still an advantage over the RB.

On another foot, one can not always say that a RZ will be newer than a RB. RB Pro SD's were simultaneously produced along side RZ's for many years.

Also, some more options to add to your decision process, there is a seller in Japan with a lot of new-old-stock NOS on the big auction site now.
Check out some of his RB and RZ gear. His auction site handle is, sanpoucamera

 

[CGW]

"Also, some more options to add to your decision process, there is a seller in Japan with a lot of new-old-stock NOS on the big auction site now.
Check out some of his RB and RZ gear. His auction site handle is, sanpoucamera"

There were some concerns last year over Mamiya NOS lenses--both RB+RZ--that showed their age with fungus issues. One busy HK eBay dealer, the now-defunct "wkcrs," sold tons of lenses that made it to resellers who spread the problem. Not sure "sanpou" is among them but it might be wise to check their refund policies.

 

[kodachrome64]

I'm probably biased towards the RZ, as that is my favorite. I have never experienced battery drain issues with my RZ's. A moot point that some mention as a deterrent to acquiring a RZ, ridiculously favoring the RB on that point alone. There are times I prefer to use auto exposure; not available with the RB. Then, as mentioned, the RZ allows use of the 110mm, the 50mm ULD, the 210 APO, and the tilt-shift adapter. All with auto exposure if needed.
Big pluses in my book. A small, separate advantage with the RZ, is the single cocking lever, small issue, but still an advantage over the RB.

On another foot, one can not always say that a RZ will be newer than a RB. RB Pro SD's were simultaneously produced along side RZ's for many years.

I absolutely love my RZ. The issues I was having with the RB were getting frustrating. It's still a great camera, don't get me wrong, but the RZ is a better match for me. The one area where I will say the RB wins for me is in aesthetics. It's just a purdier camera. Also, many people seem to say that the RZ is easier to carry than the RB. It doesn't seem any lighter to me and it sure as heck ain't smaller. After using it for a while, the things I really love are:

-Great lenses for awesome prices
-Interlocks work very well (the ones on my RB ProS didn't work)
-Locking rotating back (my RB back would drift between portrait and landscape)
-Accurate, reliable shutter
-One cocking motion (as opposed to 3 with my RB)

I can see why so many people love the RB, but I can't see why so many seem to have a prejudice against the RZ. The battery just controls the electronic (accurate) shutter, but otherwise, it's still the same mechanical camera.