RB67 - Is it really THAT bad?

michiel fokkema · Dec 10, 2008

Hi,

I think the RB67 is an excellent camera.
But my extensive kit is for sale. If you want it email me off list.
michiel.fokkema@wanadoo.nl

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

df cardwell · Dec 10, 2008

David Brown said:
Brad? Bruce? Bart?

Bert ?

Dunno, some nobody.

Seriously, here is a bit from Steve Anchell's interview with Brett Weston:

SA: You began your career in 1925, at the age of 13, with a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Graflex your father gave you. What other cameras have you used or do you prefer?

BW: My mother gave me an 8x10 view camera in 1930. It cost $25.00 back then. I must have been 20 or so. Over the years, most of my work has been done with either 8x10 or 11x14. In recent years I've suffered a series of accidents and setbacks which have prevented me from physically handling the big cameras. I've come to rely almost entirely on 2 1/4. The Rollei SL66 and the Pentax 6x7, I call it my giant 35. For abstractions and close-in things, I prefer the big Mamiya 6x7.

Here's the link. Bloody wonderful:

Dead Link Removed

StorminMatt · Dec 10, 2008

David Brown said:
Here you go ...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...7074&_trksid=p3907.m32&_trkparms=tab=Watching

I doubt that thing is going to sell. Most people just want a working camera, and are not willing to pay this kind of price for this sort of thing. And with SO many of these selling for around a third the starting bid on this one, who would actually go for it?

Robert Brummitt · Dec 10, 2008

In my commercial days, the photographers had a saying "645 glorified 35. 6x7 made in heaven"
I have had my RB since 1982 and its been my best camera for most of that time. It and I once fell of a little cliff. I made it but the camera hit a stone. I thought it was toast but the damn thing kept going. I just had it clean and checked and the camera tech gave my old RB a clean bill of health. What a glorious camera!
With the letters RB like in my name, It's got to be a great camera!

Michael Finder · Dec 10, 2008

I used an RB Pro-S for years. Great camera, great glass. I bought it because I had a 6x7 neg holder for my LPL 700 enlarger. The RB, RZ etc are an extremely flexible camera system. I only sold mine to get into 4x5 and now have a number of roll film backs to go with the 4x5. The bargains are certainly out there; you don't have to pay very much for a top shelf outfit. Beware the floating lens elements on wide lenses! Cheers Michael.

2F/2F · Dec 10, 2008

Michael Finder said:
I used an RB Pro-S for years. Great camera, great glass. I bought it because I had a 6x7 neg holder for my LPL 700 enlarger. The RB, RZ etc are an extremely flexible camera system. I only sold mine to get into 4x5 and now have a number of roll film backs to go with the 4x5. The bargains are certainly out there; you don't have to pay very much for a top shelf outfit. Beware the floating lens elements on wide lenses! Cheers Michael.

Well, that sounds like a good reason to me! "I had to buy the convertible, dear. How else was I supposed to make use of the scarf and gloves your mother gave me?!"

Funny that you have gone to 4x5 as an RB alternative, because I just picked up an RZ in order to move away from 4x5 for certain things. The universe sure has a way of achieving balance, doesn't it?

Michael Finder · Dec 11, 2008

The true spirit of recycling mandates (no flames please) that I provide homes and meaning for lovely photo equipment waiting for the inevitable demise of digital. I sense similar passion amidst APUG. Cheers Michael

xtolsniffer · Dec 11, 2008

I've wanted an RB67 ever since I first became aware of anything larger than 35mm in about 1988. Always far far too expensive. Then about two years ago they started to really drop in price and I bought one (mint RB67 pro-S). I was just going to keep to one lens (90mm), but one thing led to another and now I have a 50mm, 65mm, 90mm 140mm macro and 250mm, the latter I bought new for £190! Unbelievable! Then someone GAVE me an old RB67 Pro! I had to replace the foam in the backs and the mirror box but now it's good as new. I still can't believe that a camera that is responsible for probably 25%(ish, ok wild guess) of all fashion and advertising images over the past thirty years is selling for next to nothing. madness, but happy madness.
By the way, they are heavy, but if you go out with just one lens, two backs (colour and b&w) and a good tripod, it's less weight than two modern SLR's and a suite of lenses. I actually carry less when out with my RB than I used to with my Nikon kit. And the 6x7 images will still blow anything digital out of the water. Oh, and you get to learn all about metering, exposure compensation with extension, hyperfocal distance, reciprocity failure and a whole host of interesting things into the bargain.
As John Lennon sang, 'strange days indeed'.

Steve Smith · Dec 11, 2008

I too wanted an RB67 since I became aware of medium format. About three years ago I bougt a Bronica ETRS as that was all I could afford.

A year later I saw an advertisment for RB67 kits in a UK magazine. As I had saved a bit of money and it was nearly christmas, I bought one.

It was an RB67 Pro SD with two Pro SD backs, a 50mm C lens and a 90mm KL lens. They were from the West Midlands Police photographic department and had not seen much use and were very well cared for. Both lenses had Hoya UV filters fitted and came with the rubber lens hoods and one of the backs still had the manufacturer's label in the film memo holder suggesting that it had never been used. The pristine condition strengthened that impression.

I later added a 180mm lens and left hand grip. I also bought a Poloroid back but I don't expect I will use it much.

I use mine both on a tripod and handheld with the grip. I like the combination of hand holding and using the waist level finder.

I also carry less with the RB as I will often limit myself to just one lens.

Steve.

xtolsniffer · Dec 11, 2008

Steve, do you use the left hand grip that much? I was thinking of getting one, but I tried using a cheap flimsy general 'L grip' with a cable release and found that I preferred cradling the camera in both hands and using my right finger to press the shutter release, so I'm not sure how much use I'd get out of it.

Phillip P. Dimor · Dec 11, 2008

The Picture People chain of 1 hour portrait studios used RB67s with 645 backs (and short 120 rolls of portra 160nc). Can't remember which lens they used, but they all had waistlevel finders.

Many of the people hired were interested in photography and portraiture but I don't think many, if any really, had experience with MF. They lived on a 3-way tripod and then finally a nice studio stand. The aperture and shutter speed were preset and all, but they lived through the abuse and no one complained of them.

Once they switched to d****al a small part of me died. And people started taking 1000 pictures of the same thing. Maintaining eye contact with your subjects is hard with an slr.

The manager got to keep like 6 RB's with lens and back.. nice job with perks.

tim_walls · Dec 11, 2008

Just to add to the universal praise - I love my Pro-SD, it really is built like a tank, and that's a good thing. When I'm out on a hike the 35mm (which is very well built, don't get me wrong) gets packed away into the backpack if there's a bit of scrambling to be done - the RB67 can stay out though on the basis that rocks will break before the Mamiya does .

When I go out and about with it I do always take a monopod though - then I just carry the monopod+camera over my shoulder Dick Whittington style when I'm moving.

About the only thing I'd say is that the light seals on the back and camera are worth checking when you get one though - I have had to replace the seals on mine: if you're changing backs a lot they are vulnerable to being damaged (as well as natural aging of the seal material of course.)

Steve Smith · Dec 11, 2008

tim_walls said:
About the only thing I'd say is that the light seals on the back and camera are worth checking when you get one though - I have had to replace the seals on mine

I could be wrong* but wasn't the Pro SD back re-designed without the need for light sealing foam?

* It happened once before in 1987 so I'm not infallable.

steve.

keithwms · Dec 11, 2008

I am tempted to start another thread entitled: "Hassies- are they really that bad?" and just sit back and watch the fur fly for a few days

Of course, the RB cameras are fantastic and super modular. I have but two complaints about the RB: there is no 50 uld for it, and there is also no fast 110/2.8. But I have an rz pro2 as well, so...

Changeling1 · Dec 11, 2008

While I much prefer the Bronica GS-1, I do know that Annie Lebowitz actually hand-holds her RBs and RZs when shooting her many celebrity portraits. That's a lot of work but it works for her.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 11, 2008

I hand-hold an RB, as a 140-lb. slight bodied man, on a regular basis.

Many people hand-held their predecessors for press work on a regular basis.

By crummy lenses, yeah their lenses aren't F/2.8 10x zooms, they don't have a RAW mode, and they aren't USB compatible.

But I can take one hell of a sharp Goddamn picture with one.

Any more questions?

Steve Smith · Dec 11, 2008

xtolsniffer said:
Steve, do you use the left hand grip that much? I was thinking of getting one, but I tried using a cheap flimsy general 'L grip' with a cable release and found that I preferred cradling the camera in both hands and using my right finger to press the shutter release, so I'm not sure how much use I'd get out of it.

I use the left hand grip quite a lot. I think you need to try a proper one to appreciate it. I can see how a cheap one with a thin handle area could be tiring after a short while. The Mamiya grip is contoured for a better fit to the hand.

I used to hand hold by the cradling method before I got the grip. That works fine too.

Even with the grip, I often forget that it has a shutter release and use my right hand to trip the shutter.

Steve.

Steve Smith · Dec 11, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
I hand-hold an RB, as a 140-lb. slight bodied man.

That's how I hold it too. I prefer to forget that I am actually a 190lb, slightly fuller bodied man!

Steve.

tim_walls · Dec 11, 2008

Steve Smith said:
I could be wrong* but wasn't the Pro SD back re-designed without the need for light sealing foam?

* It happened once before in 1987 so I'm not infallable.

Well if it was, it doesn't bloody work - I've had light leaks all over the shop ;-).

More sensibly, unfortunately my example is approx. 250 miles away from me right now, but I'm sure there are foam seals on the camera body itself, and the rotating plate which the film back latches onto. There must have been foam seals somewhere because I clearly remember spending an entire afternoon replacing them .

I don't normally take the film back itself off per-se, I'm normally swapping the entire adapter plate to put in a Polaroid back - i.e. using the big lever at the bottom, not the little latches above and below the film holder. It was the light seals where the main plate attaches I was thinking of - I should have made that clear. (To be honest I'd completely forgotten there were two separate things...)

Steve Smith · Dec 11, 2008

Perhaps I was getting confused. I found this on another site:

One few other differences worth noting, the SD does not have foam seals on the rotating adapter to film back.

So perhaps the actual film back does have seals. I will look at mine tonight.

EDIT: Or, on re-reading your post, perhaps I was right after all. Either way, I'm confused now!

This may help: http://aki-asahi.com/store/html/Mamiya-RB67/Light-seal/index.php

Steve.

tim_walls · Dec 11, 2008

Steve Smith said:
Perhaps I was getting confused. I found this on another site:

One few other differences worth noting, the SD does not have foam seals on the rotating adapter to film back.

So perhaps the actual film back does have seals. I will look at mine tonight.

EDIT: Or, on re-reading your post, perhaps I was right after all. Either way, I'm confused now!

I'm really confused now as well .

From memory, the film back itself (i.e. the bit which the film goes in) doesn't have seals on it. (Or at least, on the outside; I assume there are on the film loading cover, but I've never had to replace them so I've never noticed.)

There definitely are seals on the camera body itself (i.e. the surface of the camera when the rotating plate is removed) and I thought there were seals on the rotating plate itself, but I could well be getting confused with the P-adapter plate there.

xtolsniffer · Dec 11, 2008

There is only one foam seal on the Pro-SD back itself, on the hinge there is a small strip of felt. The rest of the back doesn't seem to have any foam. There is foam on the back of then rotating plate where the back mates with the adpator. Simlar trend with my nikons. The early ones had foam on the back, the later (F100) doesn't.

Brandon D. · Dec 11, 2008

Sshhhhh!!! about the low prices.

Brandon D. · Dec 11, 2008

And on a side note, what I've learned with most medium format cameras is that once you add up backs, lenses, and other accessories that must be there in order for you to use the body, camera systems aren't as cheap as they seem. The body is just one part of the whole. With photography equipment, you almost always end up spend more than you plan, i.e., unless you get a great deal price-wise.

keithwms · Dec 11, 2008

That's true Brandon, but a complete RB system, including lens, back and waist-level and in good working condition, can go for ~$300 these days. All you have to add is film.

The cost to complete an RB system by adding another lens or so will only add another couple bucks to that price tag. Prisms also don't cost much at all. Backs go for a song, even the motorized 6x8 backs.

When I was touring medium format systems a few years ago, trying to decide which way to go, I tried a lot of different things and ultimately it was the availability of top notch and inexpensive lenses that pushed me to the rb. At the time, I didn't really know much (beyond internet hearsay) about reliability of the various kinds of gear I tried. I just figured that if all else failed, I'd only be out a couple hundred bucks for an rb Well... the old used one I got is still kicking, and I've come to realize that there is a far greater probability of my brain failing than my rb.

Here's one reason why I think the rb/rz system is so robust: almost all of the mechanical intricacy is in the lenses. The body is not overengineered. The lenses are incredibly robust (yeah, I've dropped a few, and even tried smashing one open with a hammer). The shutters, likewise, are very reliable. I haven't seen any timing drifts or freezups on any of my rb lenses, not even the older pre-C ones.

RB67 - Is it really THAT bad?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency