Praising the RB67 Pro S -- Hail the Emperor of Medium Format

[flavio81]

But you did attack their beloved Hassleblad.

Exactly, it was not a personal attack.

 

[mweintraub]

Exactly, it was not a personal attack.

We're all on the same side, we're all minorities. Lets be friends and be able to joke.

 

[tih]

seems today every no talent @sshole has rbs n hassies! hahahahaha why? cuz they're all a bunch of cheap bastards taking advantage of pro equipment at disposable prices!

Amen to that! I regularly have to just stop for a moment, look at my camera collection, and wonder at the number of really wonderful cameras I can play with whenever I want to; cameras that until quite recently were far, far out of my price range. Pentax LX, Mamiya RB67, Sinar P - the list goes on. All because the bottom fell out of the market for these exquisite professional tools.

We are *so* spoiled!

 

[paul ron]

as film heads, we do have to stick together! burn lots of film so they keep us supplied!

ive started shooting digital n get so dam frustrated at how limited i feel editing the crappy pics i took. photoshop to me feels so clumsy, so crude. more like killing flys with a hammer.

but put me in a darkroom and i am master of my domaine!... then its my fault my photos look crappy!

love the smell of fixer in the morning!

 

[Alan Gales]

It's all good, including digital. I'm not going to use my 8x10 for Ebay pics.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Did you just pull this out from some place in you body or do you have a good source for this claim? oliceman: Or was it based on what you had for breakfast today?

That was offensive. I never attacked you.

That was not and is not an attack on you. It is questioning the source of your comment and whether or not you could defend it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This reminds me of a funny quote: "Never ask a photographer: 'Is that a Hasselblad?'. If it is, he'll tell you without being asked. If not, you'll just embarrass him."

Yes, that sums it up nicely.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's all good, including digital. I'm not going to use my 8x10 for Ebay pics.

Exactly.

Digital has its place - places actually. One of the things I want is a good (but not great - high end isn't worth the money to me) DSLR. Two places in particular I would use such - family/vacation/some group events "memory recording" is one. Most such should be in color and usually a lot of shots are taken and commercial processing costs mount rapidly. Slide film is too limited now that it's limited to just a few ISO 100 and 50, daylight balanced, relatively high (or very high for Velvia) contrast and saturation films. (Ok and my frozen stock of Provia 400X and E100G for carefully measured use of a very finite resource.) Even if I get back into RA4 printing I'm not going to spend weeks knocking out a couple hundred 5x7 RA4 straight prints, plus I'd often want to send or post digital versions and have to scan them. Film is my big interest for my fun and attempt-at-art photography but digital rules for aunt Viola's birthday party kind of thing. The other is very low light work, especially if it needs to be in color.

This thread got me looking at RBs and now excited about the prices. I'll probably get one soon. I'll enjoy it a lot, I'm sure - but I won't be lugging it to that birthday party, nor giving up shooting 4x5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, digital has its place, see the third line of my signature, but frankly my hands are clean and I like to keep them that way.

 

[Roger Cole]

I like curmudgeons too. Y'all are fun to hang around with and talk to, as long as I don't become one.

I've taken far more...well, "images" with my two generations of iPhones by now than I have taken with all my film cameras combined during the same period. I have some of them sorted into albums, I show them to people sometimes etc. But all the prints I have mounted and hanging on my wall are from film. Not that they would have to be - I made my parents an 8.5x11 color inkjet print, made with my little 3MP Nikon Coolpix 995, of me standing by the airplane I first soloed and it's hanging on dad's wall at home to this day. Up close you wouldn't confuse it with a shot from a good or even fair 35mm camera and lens, but from sitting in any chair in the room I doubt you'd notice the difference. For such "memories and reminders of loved ones" photos the iPhone camera, the last generation anyway, is more than adequate even printed. Generally though I shoot images for display on film. But casual digital (not necessarily more serious work which is different but not necessarily either easier nor quicker) is quick, and it's so easy I do it without thinking*, and I do it for all kinds of reasons I'd never use film for, including seeing something interesting that I want to come back and photograph on film! A quick shot shows what I found interesting, and drop a pin on the GPS map and I can come back to the exact spot with my 4x5 or Mamiya later.

As the post I responded to says, what do you do if you want to sell something on eBay and need images of it? Well of course you CAN shoot on film and scan, but why would you when most of us have a device in our pockets or on our belts that will immediately render a ready-to-post image just as good for the purpose, and way better than it actually needs to be for the purpose, in seconds? If I'm selling something on eBay I'm not going to set up the Linhof, focus, maybe with movements, load a holder, pull the slide, expose a sheet, take it to the darkroom and develop it, let it dry then still have to scan it, reduce the image size tremendously for posting, and almost always do some further tweaking because of the nature of scanning, just for a shot of my Watchacallit I'm selling on eBay. I'm going to take a few shots with my iPhone and be done with it.

I'm not going to use my soon-to-be-owned-maybe RB67 for that either, which would be almost as much trouble, waste more film if I developed that 120 roll to get three shots etc.

*That's both a virtue and a liability at various times.

 

[Roger Cole]

I probably will in the next six months or so...

....

I ought to start a thread about RB versus RZ. I'm only vaguely aware of the differences (RB mechanical, RZ battery dependant, RZ a bit bigger and heavier, no? some lenses work on both and some don't...) and would need to decide between them.

The RB is actually the heavier camera. The RZ has more plastic parts to it. Both are fine cameras and you wouldn't go wrong with either one. Start your thread when you are ready. There are differences.

Alan

I started to start the thread then had the brilliant "well duh!" moment of deciding to use Google to search instead of the APUG vBulletin "search" (and I use the term loosely thus the quotes.) Lo and behold I turned up this on APUG:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

As well as these on other sites:

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00FUpx

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=30109.0

So I now think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences, but I still don't know which to get! Seems like the RZ is lighter and has an electronic (focal plane, I presume) shutter with intermediate speeds and can take all (I think all?) RB lenses as well as the RZ lenses? Plus it has single lever wind/cock - and maybe mirror return. I saw some reference to that so I'm thinking that neither has an instant return mirror? Doesn't much matter for what I have in mind. The downside is that it is probably less physically durable, more plastic, and less serviceable in the future, which could become an issue sooner than we'd like, and requires batteries. The one of those that doesn't really bother me is the battery dependence.

The RB on the other hand takes its own lenses, is heavier if not bigger, and lacks the electronically controlled shutter thus relying on the leaf shutters in the lenses. But it is probably more durable, certainly more serviceable, and battery-free. Used prices right now also seem much better, but in the overall cost of a system not that big of a difference. The RB can take the 6x8 back but for my purposes that's too limited to be of much use and as I said earlier I'd just crop to, say, 5x7 cm or whatever if I want a more rectangular format. Intermediate shutter speeds (and f/stops on the RZ lenses) are nice but not a big deal. I don't have them on my Yashicamat 124 nor any of my 4x5 lenses nor, for that matter, on my Pentax MX or even the LX when shooting in manual mode and I still manage good exposures. It's easy enough to read a hand held meter and, if necessary, set an intermediate f stop without having a click stop. Any amount you are off will then be too small to matter even with transparency film, which I expect I would not shoot that much of anyway (though I might if I get...shhhh...a decent scanner...)

So I found the differences but now I'm even more undecided! It may just depend on what I find in what condition once I am really able to start looking.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, digital has its place, see the third line of my signature, but frankly my hands are clean and I like to keep them that way.

I like curmudgeons too. Y'all are fun to hang around with and talk to, as long as I don't become one.

Curmudgeon? Curmudgeon? I am not old enough to be a curmudgeon!

 

[MattKing]

So I now think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences, but I still don't know which to get! Seems like the RZ is lighter and has an electronic (focal plane, I presume) shutter with intermediate speeds and can take all (I think all?) RB lenses as well as the RZ lenses? Plus it has single lever wind/cock - and maybe mirror return. I saw some reference to that so I'm thinking that neither has an instant return mirror? Doesn't much matter for what I have in mind. The downside is that it is probably less physically durable, more plastic, and less serviceable in the future, which could become an issue sooner than we'd like, and requires batteries. The one of those that doesn't really bother me is the battery dependence.

The RB on the other hand takes its own lenses, is heavier if not bigger, and lacks the electronically controlled shutter thus relying on the leaf shutters in the lenses. But it is probably more durable, certainly more serviceable, and battery-free. Used prices right now also seem much better, but in the overall cost of a system not that big of a difference. The RB can take the 6x8 back but for my purposes that's too limited to be of much use and as I said earlier I'd just crop to, say, 5x7 cm or whatever if I want a more rectangular format. Intermediate shutter speeds (and f/stops on the RZ lenses) are nice but not a big deal. I don't have them on my Yashicamat 124 nor any of my 4x5 lenses nor, for that matter, on my Pentax MX or even the LX when shooting in manual mode and I still manage good exposures. It's easy enough to read a hand held meter and, if necessary, set an intermediate f stop without having a click stop. Any amount you are off will then be too small to matter even with transparency film, which I expect I would not shoot that much of anyway (though I might if I get...shhhh...a decent scanner...)

So I found the differences but now I'm even more undecided! It may just depend on what I find in what condition once I am really able to start looking.

The RZ67 also uses leaf shutters in the lenses. It is just that the RZ lenses are electronically controlled by the body. Or you can use the RB lenses, which are mechanically controlled by each lens' shutter.

Neither mirror is instant return. The RZ backs don't have a separate winding lever, they take the winding "power" from the mechanical connection with the body.

Durability is similar - most of the non-metal parts in the RZ are the exterior covering, and are of the same high strength materials as the Mamiya 645 Pro. The "guts" of the RZ67 are mostly metal. And the electronics seem durable too. There is at least some apparent sharing of components with the 645 Pro, which means that there are in total a lot of cameras still out there.

The biggest reason I'd choose one over another if I was starting from scratch is the 110mm f/2.8 lens which is only available for the RZ67.

 

[Alan Gales]

Roger, I owned the RZ67 and like Matt says the 110mm F/2.8 lens is a peach!

I preferred the RZ because it's faster to use and when you revolve the back, internal blinds move to show portrait or landscape orientation. I believe the RB just has lines showing both. I also really liked the 110 lens. Now you need to understand that I used the RZ mostly for portraiture with studio lights. A landscape photographer may prefer the RB for it's metal body and it being strictly mechanical.

 

[jslabovitz]

There is a grace to the RB that belies it's heft. It feels 'right' -- well-balanced for what it is. I ordered an RZ once from KEH, and the instant I got it out of the box I knew it wasn't for me. It felt *too* light, and very plasticky (I can still remember the plastic *smell*!).

I recommend finding the the Pro S or later. The older the back/body, the more problems I've had. Also, I the S (or maybe it's the SD) added enough interlocks that you don't find yourself accidentally taking multiple exposures. That's one feature I cannot understand the reasoning for. Must have been a big thing in the early 70s...

 

[Roger Cole]

The RZ67 also uses leaf shutters in the lenses. It is just that the RZ lenses are electronically controlled by the body. Or you can use the RB lenses, which are mechanically controlled by each lens' shutter.

Neither mirror is instant return. The RZ backs don't have a separate winding lever, they take the winding "power" from the mechanical connection with the body.

Durability is similar - most of the non-metal parts in the RZ are the exterior covering, and are of the same high strength materials as the Mamiya 645 Pro. The "guts" of the RZ67 are mostly metal. And the electronics seem durable too. There is at least some apparent sharing of components with the 645 Pro, which means that there are in total a lot of cameras still out there.

The biggest reason I'd choose one over another if I was starting from scratch is the 110mm f/2.8 lens which is only available for the RZ67.

Hum. So assuming I'm right that the RZ can use all RB lenses but not vice-versa, is there any reason to choose the RB over the RZ other than lower prices for used bodies? All I found was the lack of battery dependence (don't care) and the 6x8 back (also don't care.)

 

[MattKing]

Hum. So assuming I'm right that the RZ can use all RB lenses but not vice-versa, is there any reason to choose the RB over the RZ other than lower prices for used bodies? All I found was the lack of battery dependence (don't care) and the 6x8 back (also don't care.)

The used RB accessories can also be less expensive. Things like backs and metering chimney finders and the mechanical left hand grip.

If I didn't have a bunch of RB backs and the PD metering chimney finder and the mechanical left hand grip, I would look hard at replacing my RB with an RZ.

 

[Alan Gales]

Whichever camera you buy, make sure to get the left hand grip. For me it made my RZ so much easier to handle.

 

[Roger Cole]

Polaroid back also readily available for RZ? Fuji 100C (or whatever the number is) is nice stuff, and I even have a few packs of the 3000 BW left. 7x7 Fujiroids have an appeal.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Roger,

There's also Karen Nakamura's site:

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/MamiyaRB67.html

Keep in mind that not only are there are three RB67's (Pro, Pro S, Pro SD) but corresponding backs as well. At the very least you want the Pro S because of the interlocks and other refinements. The SD will let you use the nicer K/L lenses such as the 75mm shift lens. Also, regarding lenses, you want at least a C lens for the coating.

The RB is what I prefer over the RZ because it is 100% mechanical. I just think mine will still be working 50 years from now.

Things not obvious:
- the dark slide can be stored on the side of the camera
- long heavy lenses (e.g. 360mm) need a support bracket so you don't bend the focus rails

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger,

There's also Karen Nakamura's site:

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/MamiyaRB67.html

Keep in mind that not only are there are three RB67's (Pro, Pro S, Pro SD) but corresponding backs as well. At the very least you want the Pro S because of the interlocks and other refinements. The SD will let you use the nicer K/L lenses such as the 75mm shift lens. Also, regarding lenses, you want at least a C lens for the coating.

The RB is what I prefer over the RZ because it is 100% mechanical. I just think mine will still be working 50 years from now.

Things not obvious:
- the dark slide can be stored on the side of the camera
- long heavy lenses (e.g. 360mm) need a support bracket so you don't bend the focus rails

That makes total sense to me, but at today's prices for RBs one could build a complete RZ system using a number of RB lenses (and whatever RZ lenses one preferred, like that 100/2.8) and just get an RB Pro-S body, finder and couple of backs as a spare usable with some but not all of your lenses

 

[Ric Trexell]

In Wisconsin a mechanical RB has an advantage over a battery camera.

I notice Roger is in Georgia and so this doesn't apply, but a few years a go I was taking some pictures of kids sledding down a hill. It was about 10 above and the RB worked great. Last year I was at the local ski hill and after about 15 minutes the digital camera stopped working. The lesson is that if you are thinking of doing some out side shooting in places north of the Mason-Dixie, you might want to consider an RB vs. a RZ. And you might also want to consider doing anything in 10 above weather, other than sitting in the house and listening to the furnace kick in.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Almost all all mechanical will work well in cold weather, especially if they have been kept in use since the last CLA. Battery cameras, not so much though because the cold puts the battery to sleep.

 

[Roger Cole]

After looking at the relative prices the RB looks more attractive again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Roger Cole]

But - I don't do cold. I hide inside in anything under 30F, sometimes 40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.