Pentax 67II vs RZ67

[dodphotography]

Granted, I understand there is a free market component involved but I'm scratching my head a bit over the cost of a Pentax 67II vs an RZ.

It seems you could land an RZ with a single back, two lenses, and a small array of accessories for what seems 1/2 the cost of a 67II. Market on the 67II is just north of 2 grand.

I can't find anyone loca who has either so it's hard to find a real world justification but I'm curious what folks think about the 67II and if it's "worth" the gap in value.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Not RZs, but I have two complete RB systems (very similar to the RZ) and a 67II system - the RB's are much heavier and bulkier than the 67II, but more versatile with changing film type on the fly and the rotating backs. The 67II is not only lighter, but with an AE prism and rosewood grip is something I can carry around all day. Both are great cameras, but the 67II feels and shoots very much like a 35MM SLR, on steroids. The RBs/RZs lenses all have leaf shutters, and focusing is done by moving the bellows - no lens focus ring whereas the 67II doesn't have the leaf shutter lenses other than the 90mm and 165mm lens. The RB/RZ has a nice 150mm soft focus lens; the 67II has a 120mm. The RB/RZ have tons of accessories - different format backs (645, Polaroid etc and more) - but with all of the lenses and accessories I have two very heavy cases to lug which are nowhere as portable as the 67II. Plus, the 67II does have a couple of decent zoom lenses.

Both are very good systems, and if you want to get into 6x7 at lower cost, the RB/RZs make a good option. My RB's don't get used much simply due to weight and the very nice AE metering prism of the 67II; I'm typically going out and shooting both digital (a D800) and film - I grab the 67II 99% of the time.

Regards,
Mike

 

[mshchem]

I have a RZ setup. FORGET walking around with a RZ with a Prism. Weighs a ton. I love my RZ setup. You don't need the 67II get a older model if you want a giant "35mm like" camera. There's millions of bits and pieces for RB and RZ out there,

 

[Ed Sawyer]

Rz is the better choice by far. Pentax was always cheaper of the two systems back in the day, and the build quality shows that. Not sure why anyone would pay more for a pentax than the rz.... That is just crazy talk. The rz with a prism is not bad to walk arpund with at all, I carry mine that way, with an L grip and the motor drive to boot! Aren't you in Boston area? I am in NH so might be feasible to meet up if you want to see an RZ in person.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I recently got an RZ with 110 f2.8 and 180 f4.5 lenses. Toting that kit is manageable, as mentioned before, without the AE prism or motor winder. But the weight of the accessories and additional lenses adds up FAST. The 110 f2.8 is THE lens to get with that kit- it's brilliant. Weight and size are still not on a par with my Rolleiflexes.

 

[jvo]

had both and it more borders on an apples/oranges comparison.

i agree with all said except the quality issue - pentax was well built and durable, as was the rz. yes, the rz with any accessories is not what you want to stroll around with! (of course if you're practicing for the olympics, it would be just the thing to do!)

 

[destroya]

the pentax was a lot cheaper a few years ago, not sure why they have gone up in price, except that maybe people are realizing that it is a great landscape camera.

the choice of them in my mind depends upon how and where you are going to use them. I was in yosemite a few weeks ago and was very happy to see that i was not the only person there shooting a pentax 67 system. I have never seen an RZ in the field, see them much more in the studio

 

[Alan Gales]

I recently got an RZ with 110 f2.8 and 180 f4.5 lenses. Toting that kit is manageable, as mentioned before, without the AE prism or motor winder. But the weight of the accessories and additional lenses adds up FAST. The 110 f2.8 is THE lens to get with that kit- it's brilliant. Weight and size are still not on a par with my Rolleiflexes.

I recently got an RZ with 110 f2.8 and 180 f4.5 lenses. Toting that kit is manageable, as mentioned before, without the AE prism or motor winder. But the weight of the accessories and additional lenses adds up FAST. The 110 f2.8 is THE lens to get with that kit- it's brilliant. Weight and size are still not on a par with my Rolleiflexes.

I agree.

I used to own an RZ with a three lens kit (50mm ULD, 110mm, and 180mm). The 110 is a peach of a lens! Walking around with the RZ the 110, waist level finder and "L" grip attached was manageable. Add the AE prism and the motor wind and it get's heavy.

 

[Alan Gales]

A very good friend of mine owned an earlier version of the Pentax with mirror lock up and I owned the RZ. You should have heard the friendly arguments that we had about the two cameras.

Landscape photographers usually prefer the Pentax and portrait photographers usually prefer the RZ67. The RZ has the wonderful 110mm lens but the Pentax has it's equally good and some say better 105mm lens. The Pentax handles like an overgrown 35mm camera with it's focal plane shutter and the RZ is more like a modular box with interchangeable backs. The RZ lenses all have leaf shutters and the Pentax has at least one leaf shutter lens. I know because my friend owns one. There is also a special soft focus RB 150mm lens as mentioned above that will also work on the RZ plus a 180mm soft focus RZ lens if you like soft focus portraits. They use spherical aberration to achieve this effect. You cannot get the same look with a soft focus lens with soft filters or photoshop. RB lenses can work on the RZ but you have to manually cock their shutters. The RZ's are quick to focus with their bellows focussing and can focus really close without extension tubes. There are two extension tubes available to focus even closer. I believe the Pentax also has extension tubes available. I'm not a macro photographer myself.

I've never shot the Pentax but I've handled my friend's camera. I couldn't warm up to it. It just didn't feel right in my hands. My friend absolutely hated my RZ. Both cameras do have loyal followers.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Two very different cameras.
The Pentax 67ii has access to a lot of quality lenses on the used market, much higher in ready availability than the RZ offerings. This is beside considering the weight of the two systems: how heavy is the RZ to carry around on a 10km walk? Compared to...? I have never seen an RZ on any walk or used at any time in a landscape or scenic photography context. There might be a message is the lack of sightings.

The P67ii is the modern update to the solid, stalwart Pentax 67 (1989-release) with updated metering etc, but at the end of the day it is nothing without a decent fit out of lenses. For that matter you could save a lot more again by buying the earlier Pentax 67, a separate hand-held meter (the TTL meter, where fitted, only meters to 1sec), and say the 45, 55 or 105mm lenses. Your kit is complete, there and then.

Any and all Pentax MF bodies must be thoroughly checked before buying. The older Pentax 67 cameras (and the even older 1969-vintage Pentax 6x7 bodies -- not a good buy today) can and do develop age-related malaises, while the 67ii has occasionally seen faded or indisdinct top panel LCD display.

 

[Toyo]

Two very different cameras.
The Pentax 67ii has access to a lot of quality lenses on the used market, much higher in ready availability than the RZ offerings. This is beside considering the weight of the two systems: how heavy is the RZ to carry around on a 10km walk? Compared to...? I have never seen an RZ on any walk or used at any time in a landscape or scenic photography context. There might be a message is the lack of sightings.

The P67ii is the modern update to the solid, stalwart Pentax 67 (1989-release) with updated metering etc, but at the end of the day it is nothing without a decent fit out of lenses. For that matter you could save a lot more again by buying the earlier Pentax 67, a separate hand-held meter (the TTL meter, where fitted, only meters to 1sec), and say the 45, 55 or 105mm lenses. Your kit is complete, there and then.

Any and all Pentax MF bodies must be thoroughly checked before buying. The older Pentax 67 cameras (and the even older 1969-vintage Pentax 6x7 bodies -- not a good buy today) can and do develop age-related malaises, while the 67ii has occasionally seen faded or indisdinct top panel LCD display.

I use a Pentax 67 - mirror up version - but an older one and definitely not the 67ii.
With this I use a hand-held Luna-Six meter, and yes I mainly take landscapes with it.
It does a marvellous job, especially with the wide angle lenses available. I was lucky enough to pick up a 75, 55 and 45 when they were very cheap, and these are my workhorses in the wild.
You don't need a 67ii to make good images, but I would highly recommend a mirror-up version - as at lower shutter speeds it is a big advantage.
The RZ67 is a wonderful camera, but more at home in the studio I think.
T

 

[MattKing]

I walk regularly with my RB67 - sometimes several kilometres at a time.
It is great exercise.
I was looking through what I have that originated in the RB67 and I have in scanned format. It seems I tend to go straight to printing my RB67 results, rather than spending time at the scanner.
Here are a couple of exceptions - both taken during decently long walks:


Most of my RB67 shots involve a tripod, but I have and certainly use the handgrip as well.
Both options are incredibly capable. I would gravitate to the one that appeals to your approach.
In my case, the rotating back on the RB/RZ is the factor that makes the difference for me. I don't have nor do I want a prism finder for my RB, but I do like using the later version metering chimney finder.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I was lucky enough to pick up a 75, 55 and 45 when they were very cheap, and these are my workhorses in the wild.

It's a funny thing how very consistent the choices of people are in regard to the Pentax 67 lenses! That combo is everywhere.
With the exception of the 55mm f4 which was my first lens with this camera, and was sold of some years back, I use extensively the 45mm f4 and the 75mm f2.8AL. Each trip away sees both get a busy to-and-fro workout, as opposed to the additional 90mm f2,8 and 165mm LS which spend too much of their time as glorified paper weights (OK, back-breakers then...)

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I walk regularly with my RB67 - sometimes several kilometres at a time.
It is great exercise.

I imagine so...

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Granted, I understand there is a free market component involved but I'm scratching my head a bit over the cost of a Pentax 67II vs an RZ.

It seems you could land an RZ with a single back, two lenses, and a small array of accessories for what seems 1/2 the cost of a 67II. Market on the 67II is just north of 2 grand.

I can't find anyone loca who has either so it's hard to find a real world justification but I'm curious what folks think about the 67II and if it's "worth" the gap in value.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Granted, I understand there is a free market component involved but I'm scratching my head a bit over the cost of a Pentax 67II vs an RZ.

It seems you could land an RZ with a single back, two lenses, and a small array of accessories for what seems 1/2 the cost of a 67II. Market on the 67II is just north of 2 grand.

I can't find anyone loca who has either so it's hard to find a real world justification but I'm curious what folks think about the 67II and if it's "worth" the gap in value.

If you're going to buy an RZ BUY THE RZ PRO II. They have 1/2 stop shutter speeds & LA lenses have 1/2 stop Aperture stops. Film Backs are better geared for spacing.

GREAT FOR INDOORS, AWFUL FOR OUTDOORS, cameras are too open to DUST. RZ's use a camera drive to advance the film. RB backs are independent of camera.

This makes them better for OUTDOORS, as DUST causes less trouble. RB's are advanced BY HAND. RZ'a use a Quartz Timed Shutter, RB's use a Manual Spring Shutter.

The Manual Springed Shutter is prone to Variation, especially at 1/400 th of a second.

BOTH RZ's & RB's are HEAVY. Recommend Tripod, or Monopod. Flash sync speed for both cameras is 1/400 th of a second.

 

[David T T]

I walk around with my RB67 all the time! One thing that is overlooked in comparing these beasts is flash sync speed. As mentioned, an RB/RZ can sync up to 1/400th, while the Pentax can only do 1/30th. I shoot a lot of flash, indoors and outdoors, and sync speeds for the Pentax is a deal breaker. For someone else it might be a non-issue.

 

[Toyo]

I walk around with my RB67 all the time! One thing that is overlooked in comparing these beasts is flash sync speed. As mentioned, an RB/RZ can sync up to 1/400th, while the Pentax can only do 1/30th. I shoot a lot of flash, indoors and outdoors, and sync speeds for the Pentax is a deal breaker. For someone else it might be a non-issue.

Yes, it depends on your priorities. Flash sync has never interested me for outdoor photography, but the ability to use faster shutter speeds - 1/1000s definitely did.
What drew me to the P67 was the use of it by Ernst Haas, and his beautiful motion studies with slower shutters speeds.
Combine the two and that sealed it as far as I was concerned.
I have an RB67, but it stays in the studio.
T

 

[Helinophoto]

I've had my RZ 67 pro II for a while now and I have mostly used it for landscapes, especially for infrared, since my Canon lens-fitting Hoya r72 filter, also fits the Mamiya lenses nicely.

The basic camera with lens is mere 2.5 kg, which really is nothing to speak of, unless you have a medical issue, I carry mine in a backpack.

The weight isn't the issue, the size may be a different matter. Since it has the rotating back (which is practical), the camera-dimensions put it into large-format territory
Indeed, the viewfinder and the ground-glass is prone to dust and grit, so that may be a problem (easy to clean though).

I have used mine hand-held as a on-location portrait camera and it works very well (focusing mechanism, speed and accuracy sure beats the pants out of my slow-bum, hit-and-miss Hasselblad 503 CW)

I am currently looking at various Pentax 67 II cameras on eBay and was a bit surprised about the price for a less dinged one + a basic lens, it quickly pass the $2000 mark.
The older Pentax 67 variants aren't tempting, since the ergonomics on those are none-existent and nobody can understand the point of the wooden-grip on those, as it is on the left side (the hand you focus with). The right hand struggles and cramps up due to the no-grip solution and weird shutter-release placement.

67 II really looks like a beautiful and functional camera, which can actually be used as a "35mm on steroids" ^^

Funny video about the Mamiya and the Pentax on analog-rev ^^

 

[chris77]

rz67 with 2 lenses and second back +tripod is what i have been carrying around a lot, for two years.

 

[chris77]

sent this too early. what happened to the edit button??

 

[Soeren]

Re the RZ not being hans holdable. Up your game guys
From min 14:30

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Good example Soeren. Annie Leibovitz in the late 1980s (probably, but could be early 90s) had a part in a music video handholding an RZ in the studio. Haven’t been able to find the video online.

 

[Soeren]

Not always usefull but intertaining. I wish theyd make a season three.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

The RZ is about a half pound lighter than the RB. I have two complete RB systems. Yesterday I spent all day shooting in the field with my 67II with the AE finder and wood grip. You couldn't pay me to take the Mamiya out of the studio for field work, though I'd use it if that was the only 6x7 I had available.

What matters is which one you'd pick up, put in your vehicle, and shoot with all day.

MFL