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

markbarendt · Jan 14, 2016

Roger Cole said:
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.

That's why I'm in Portland OR, not Durango CO.

flavio81 · Jan 15, 2016

Alan Gales said:
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.

The RB67 Pro-S also does this, as well as the RB67 Pro-SD.

As mentioned, the RZ can use RB lenses. The original RB67 and the Pro-S can use original (first series) lenses, "C" lenses and also "K" and "K/L" lenses. The Pro-SD can use all those plus the "L"-only lenses. The RZ can use all of them plus the electronic lenses.

Alan Gales · Jan 15, 2016

flavio81 said:
The RB67 Pro-S also does this, as well as the RB67 Pro-SD.

Ok, so I found the PDF on the Pro-SD. On page 10 it explains it. http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/RB67_Pro_SD_v7.pdf

The RB Pro-SD uses solid and broken red lines to show orientation while the RZ uses internal blinds.

Yeah, I guess you are right. Ones probably as good as the other. Thanks!

Roger Cole · Jan 15, 2016

I can see advantages and disadvantages both ways. The blinds seem a surer method of composition to me, but the lines allow you to see the potential in the other orientation without actually rotating the back.

DaveInAZ · Jan 16, 2016

Hi guys! I'm brand new on here, having just learned of APUG's existence a few days ago. I've been reading the forums since then, and now I have a question. Oh, and those who are going to do so might as well start hating me now, because I shoot everything, including digital.

This has been a very informative and entertaining thread but, like every other thread on the web that touches on the RB or RZ cameras, it's full of people saying how big and heavy they are, although here it seems to be simply an acknowledgement, rather than a complaint. But I have never yet found anywhere that actually says how heavy is "heavy". I realize it depends a great deal on what finder, back, and lens one mounts, but still... what's way too heavy to one person clearly is not too heavy to many others. So, does anyone who owns a pretty typical example of one of these beasts have a bathroom scale that's reasonably accurate? Or a kitchen scale that's big enough? Or a brochure or manual that has actual specs? Just how heavy are they?

I'm really curious because I was very interested in getting an RB setup awhile ago, and was dissuaded by all the moaning about how enormous and unbearably heavy it is.

Sirius Glass · Jan 16, 2016

DaveInAZ said:
Hi guys! I'm brand new on here, having just learned of APUG's existence a few days ago. I've been reading the forums since then, and now I have a question. Oh, and those who are going to do so might as well start hating me now, because I shoot everything, including digital.

This has been a very informative and entertaining thread but, like every other thread on the web that touches on the RB or RZ cameras, it's full of people saying how big and heavy they are, although here it seems to be simply an acknowledgement, rather than a complaint. But I have never yet found anywhere that actually says how heavy is "heavy". I realize it depends a great deal on what finder, back, and lens one mounts, but still... what's way too heavy to one person clearly is not too heavy to many others. So, does anyone who owns a pretty typical example of one of these beasts have a bathroom scale that's reasonably accurate? Or a kitchen scale that's big enough? Or a brochure or manual that has actual specs? Just how heavy are they?

I'm really curious because I was very interested in getting an RB setup awhile ago, and was dissuaded by all the moaning about how enormous and unbearably heavy it is.

Welcome to APUG

If it is MF and larger than a Hasselblad, it is both too big and too heavy.

markbarendt · Jan 16, 2016

Hi Dave and welcome.

I have 2 sitting here ready to shoot, the light one weighs about 6#, the other almost 9#.

Mine typically ride on top of a monopod (2-3#'s).

Even with the extra weight the monopod makes it easier to carry and use because it's not hanging on your arm or neck, it's supported by the ground most of the time.

markbarendt · Jan 16, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Welcome to APUG

If it is MF and larger than a Hasselblad, it is both too big and too heavy.

Too heavy for namby-pamby, milksop, sissy geezers.

TheFlyingCamera · Jan 16, 2016

DaveInAZ said:
Hi guys! I'm brand new on here, having just learned of APUG's existence a few days ago. I've been reading the forums since then, and now I have a question. Oh, and those who are going to do so might as well start hating me now, because I shoot everything, including digital.

This has been a very informative and entertaining thread but, like every other thread on the web that touches on the RB or RZ cameras, it's full of people saying how big and heavy they are, although here it seems to be simply an acknowledgement, rather than a complaint. But I have never yet found anywhere that actually says how heavy is "heavy". I realize it depends a great deal on what finder, back, and lens one mounts, but still... what's way too heavy to one person clearly is not too heavy to many others. So, does anyone who owns a pretty typical example of one of these beasts have a bathroom scale that's reasonably accurate? Or a kitchen scale that's big enough? Or a brochure or manual that has actual specs? Just how heavy are they?

I'm really curious because I was very interested in getting an RB setup awhile ago, and was dissuaded by all the moaning about how enormous and unbearably heavy it is.

Oh, they're heavy enough. Not a camera I want to take on walkabout or to do "street" photography with (not the least reason being how loud it is when you actually take the photo). But they CAN be hand-held - I had a several hour photo shoot in the studio recently where I shot with my RB-67 ProSD, the motorized 6x7 back (it takes 4 AA batteries!) and the 180mm f4.5 lens. That's one end of the spectrum. The other end is one of my photography professors took an RZ 67, I forget what lens (might have been the 110 f2.8), a back, the AE prism, the left-hand grip and the motor winder with him for a day's worth of shooting at Longwood Gardens, where they don't allow tripods. The weight was enough that the next day, his hand and wrist had gone numb from a pinched nerve and he was unable to use the left hand for two or three days afterward.

wombat2go · Jan 16, 2016

DaveInAZ said:
But I have never yet found anywhere that actually says how heavy is "heavy". I realize it depends a great deal on what finder, back, and lens one mounts, but still... what's way too heavy to one person clearly is not too heavy to many others. So, does anyone who owns a pretty typical example of one of these beasts have a bathroom scale that's reasonably accurate? Or a kitchen scale that's big enough? Or a brochure or manual that has actual specs? Just how heavy are they?
.

approx:

Pro S body cube: 1.25 kg
Prism (basic) 0.88 kg
Back 0.4 kg
50mm C lens 0.87 kg
90mm C lens 0.64 kg

Sirius Glass · Jan 16, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Welcome to APUG

If it is MF and larger than a Hasselblad, it is both too big and too heavy.

markbarendt said:
Too heavy for namby-pamby, milksop, sissy geezers.

I was being tactful, because the two are too flimsily built and just not up to the quality I expect in cameras. Evidently I do not have to be tactful with you.

Roger Cole · Jan 16, 2016

I dunno, a lot of those flimsily built cameras seem to have been going for a long time in hard pro service. They also don't seem to need as much regular service as more intricate Swedish stuff.

Theo Sulphate · Jan 16, 2016

wombat2go said:
approx:

Pro S body cube: 1.25 kg
Prism (basic) 0.88 kg
Back 0.4 kg
50mm C lens 0.87 kg
90mm C lens 0.64 kg

So, a typical outfit:

Pro S body: 1.25 kg
Waist-level finder: 0.15 kg
Pro S back: 0.40 kg
90mm C lens: 0.64 kg

adds up to 2.44kg (5.38lbs).

wombat2go · Jan 16, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
So, a typical outfit:

Pro S body: 1.25 kg
Waist-level finder: 0.15 kg
Pro S back: 0.40 kg
90mm C lens: 0.64 kg

adds up to 2.44kg (5.38lbs).

I was too long as amateur photographer with 35mm slr so I was not happy with the RB67 wlf and I decided not to use it.
Last year I went from Michigan to Australia with the RB67 Pro S body, the prism, one back and the one 50mm lens. I really enjoyed taking photos with that kit.
On that trip I was able to take a suitcase as checked baggage , so I took the Mamiya and an Olympus M43 plus the film, carried on. No problems with security.

In Feb I have to go Michigan-Taiwan-Australia-Taiwan_Michigan.
On this trip I can not take a suitcase checked due to short transit times. So there will be no RB67 on this trip, as everything will be hand carried with my work clothes.
I am looking at either :
Century 2x3 with the Super Angulon 65m plus the M43
Pentax MX with the standard lens f/1.4 50mm plus the Pentax-M f/2.8 24mm

Both of those options are about same weight.
Regards,

flavio81 · Jan 17, 2016

wombat2go said:
approx:

Pro S body cube: 1.25 kg
Prism (basic) 0.88 kg
Back 0.4 kg
50mm C lens 0.87 kg
90mm C lens 0.64 kg

Two observations:

- The waist level finder is compact and way lighter than the prism.
- The 127mm lens is smaller and lighter than the 90.

film_man · Jan 17, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
I was being tactful, because the two are too flimsily built and just not up to the quality I expect in cameras. Evidently I do not have to be tactful with you.

You know there is a limit to the amount Hasselblad fanboiness you can dispense without taking in tongue-in-cheek comments from others about it. Yes we get it, you love Hasselblads and you think they are the start and end of it all. But they just aren't.

Kevin Caulfield · Jan 17, 2016

Oh yes they are.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

Sirius Glass · Jan 17, 2016

I may be a fan boy, but when someone chooses their camera it is their camera and I do not put them or the chosen camera down.

DaveInAZ · Jan 17, 2016

Thanks for the welcomes and information, everyone And, especially, thanks to Wombat2Go and Theo Sulfate (great names, btw) for the specifics.

5.4 lbs is a lot, if you're used to carrying a small rangefinder, but I often carry a DSLR with a 100-400mm zoom that weighs almost exactly the same amount. Now I have a very clear understanding of what "heavy" means, in this context. So, for me, it would certainly be manageable for the situations where it would be useful (I'm thinking landscapes and architecture), although I suspect the ergonomics aren't as good in terms of carrying it.

DaveInAZ · Jan 17, 2016

Wombat2Go - What sort of nightmare job requires you to travel for 48 hours, one way, without allowing you to take a suitcase? I don't understand what you mean by short transit times. If Taiwan is merely a stop-over on the way to Australia, you would simply check your bag through to Australia when you board the plane in MI, and never see it again until you land in Sydney (or wherever). Even if you got off the plane in Taipei and went to a meeting, then back to the airport and on to OZ, you still wouldn't need to claim your bag and re-check it. How is there a problem?

juan · Jan 17, 2016

I used to carry a black C-1 on a Zone VI heavy duty tripod. The RB-67 is nothing.
Juan

Roger Cole · Jan 17, 2016

The RB is going to be bigger than the DSLR. The lens won't be like that monster you are used to though.

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

Kirks518 · Jan 17, 2016

DaveInAZ said:
Hi guys! I'm brand new on here, having just learned of APUG's existence a few days ago. I've been reading the forums since then, and now I have a question. Oh, and those who are going to do so might as well start hating me now, because I shoot everything, including digital.

This has been a very informative and entertaining thread but, like every other thread on the web that touches on the RB or RZ cameras, it's full of people saying how big and heavy they are, although here it seems to be simply an acknowledgement, rather than a complaint. But I have never yet found anywhere that actually says how heavy is "heavy". I realize it depends a great deal on what finder, back, and lens one mounts, but still... what's way too heavy to one person clearly is not too heavy to many others. So, does anyone who owns a pretty typical example of one of these beasts have a bathroom scale that's reasonably accurate? Or a kitchen scale that's big enough? Or a brochure or manual that has actual specs? Just how heavy are they?

I'm really curious because I was very interested in getting an RB setup awhile ago, and was dissuaded by all the moaning about how enormous and unbearably heavy it is.

I just weighed mine.

RB67 Pro SD with 50mm 4.5 'C', 120 back (no film), single-action waist level finder comes in at 5.95 lbs., 9.25" long, 8.5" tall (with finder open), and 5.5" wide (standard width).

In comparison:

Mamiya M645 with 150mm, CDS finder, and power winder is 5.7 lbs., 7.5" long, 6.25" wide, 6" tall.

Canon 50D with 24-105 L lens and BG-E2 battery grip, comes in at 4.07 lbs., 7" long, 6.25" tall, 5.75" wide.

Mamiya C330 with 55mm 4.5 and WLF comes in at 3.8 lbs., 4.5" long, 4.75" wide, 8.75" tall.

Yashica Mat 124G, comes in as the featherweight at 2.3 lbs, 4" long, 8.25" tall, 4" wide.

For me, it's not the weight of the camera, but the behemoth size. I tend to use one of the others, unless I want/need the 6x7 size, or want to do some Polaroids (I only have a P-back for the RB).

Roger Cole · Jan 17, 2016

The 645 is normally smaller than that, unless you carry it around with the 100mm. Seems odd to compare the 645 with a lens nearly twice the normal-for-format focal length with the RB and a wide angle that's closer to (just over) half normal-for-focal length. But I guess that's what you had. The RB is still 2.5" taller and a whopping 2.25" longer with a wide angle lens than the M645 is with a moderate tele.

I never owned one but from looking at them the RB always looked to me like it would be similar to carrying a very light weight cinder block around. Light that is as cinder blocks go.

Tony-S · Jan 17, 2016

DaveInAZ said:
I'm really curious because I was very interested in getting an RB setup awhile ago, and was dissuaded by all the moaning about how enormous and unbearably heavy it is.

The Bronica GS-1 is a bit more compact and lighter. That's the principal reason I went with it because I haul it in a pack for hiking in the Rockies. I usually take 2 or 3 lenses so by that time the weight of the body becomes less important.

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

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency