RB67 on 35 mm

[Jeremy Mudd]

I own a GX617 but often am shooting panos with my RB67 due to not having to lug around a 1-trick pony like the GX617.

Some more thoughts on this subject here:

https://www.jeremymuddphoto.com/blog/2020/3/4/how-to-35mm-panoramic-film-images

Jeremy

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

And here's a few pics taken with the RB67 with 35mm film

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Jeremy Mudd Very nice! You managed to show the on-the-bridge shot twice, but the magnificent waterfall shot couldn't hide by slinking down there in the thumbnails at the bottom of the post...

 

[Ariston]

And here's a few pics taken with the RB67 with 35mm filmView attachment 242984 View attachment 242984 View attachment 242985

Those are great, Jeremy! I don't have the skill to get anything like that out of my RB yet. Well done.

 

[MattiS]

Yes, 35 with the RB was fun.

 

[radiant]

Awesome work guys!

 

[choiliefan]

Indeed.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

@Jeremy Mudd Very nice! You managed to show the on-the-bridge shot twice, but the magnificent waterfall shot couldn't hide by slinking down there in the thumbnails at the bottom of the post...

Thanks! Yeah the uploader here is a little klunky - I'll get better at it over time.

That waterfall shot was taken with some interesting film - SVEMA MZ-3 which is a motion picture copy film with an ISO of 3. One of the reasons I like shooting 35mm panos in my RB is the fact I can use some different film stock that's not readily available in 120.

Jeremy

 

[Donald Qualls]

I agree, that's another delightful possibility. For instance, I've got three or four cassettes of Adox CMS20, which isn't (at present) available in 120. Also, I have a couple bulk loaders, and bulk rolls help keep film costs under control. I may have to buy some more cassettes, though; at present, I don't have enough to load a whole bulk roll into cassettes at once, which ties up a bulk loader until I can empty some cassettes. Cassettes keep.

Once my leader stock arrives, I'll be trying out the cassette to cassette method I gave in the OP for this thread, and if that works out well, I'll fabricate a frame mask for my 220 back. BTW, I've got a roll of negatives on hand, let me check spacing...PERFECT. One wrap of electrical tape joining the counter drive to the main film roller on the supply side, and no more dancing with the double exposure lever.

 

[peter k.]

Oh my, .. now were in trouble.. love my old 1914 Brownie converted to MF for its Panoramic shots... but to do it in my RB67 with the better, and changeable lenses.. oh my...

 

[radiant]

I just purchased grip handle for my RB67. Also attached the prism finder that I previously had. 90mm lens.

It weights 3.9kg (8.59 pouds) with that setup.

Holy crap that is heavy. I'm not a weak arm but still I can count seconds how long I can keep the camera steady with one arm. Maybe for 35mm panorama street photography I would need some other camera

 

[Donald Qualls]

Maybe for 35mm panorama street photography I would need some other camera

You could use two sets of the 135/120 adapters, two 35 mm cassettes (allowing daylight unloading), and make a clicker out of a scrap of film to do 35 mm pano in a 6x9 folder. I've got one that weighs just about a pound. Not an SLR, but also not much more than a tenth the weight...

Or if you're a little more serious, you could 3D print a box with a Graflok back and helicoid, and use just the 220 back from the RB with a suitable wide angle large format lens and probably get into the two pound range.

 

[Ariston]

You really only need one set of adapters. You can tape the lead to some used 120 paper leader.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You really only need one set of adapters. You can tape the lead to some used 120 paper leader.

True. IMO, however, it's easier to load and unload (and you can unload in the light) if you use cassette-to-cassette with leaders on both ends. There's room inside a standard 135 cassette for 40+ exposures, one leader or the other need not be in the cassette at loading and unloading. The tail needs to be carefully sized to preventing happily shooting on the (non sensitized) tail leader -- but if you're using a camera made for 220, you can control this by loading only 36 exposures lengths of 35 mm into your cassettes. And unlike rolling the 35 mm film completely into a 120 backing roll, you don't have to do any precision alignment in the dark; you can do everything you need with a bulk loader (or two cassettes in a changing bag, if you're using film stock you can't buy on bulk rolls).

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I just purchased grip handle for my RB67. Also attached the prism finder that I previously had. 90mm lens.

It weights 3.9kg (8.59 pouds) with that setup.

Holy crap that is heavy. I'm not a weak arm but still I can count seconds how long I can keep the camera steady with one arm. Maybe for 35mm panorama street photography I would need some other camera

Even though I own the grip and prism, I seldom use them - they add a lot of bulk for (to me) little reward. I'd recommend ditching both and using a good neck strap. Looking down into the WLF also gives you an advantage of people not really knowing you are taking their image.

Jeremy

 

[narsuitus]

I carefully cut the top and bottom of a plastic 120 film spool to make two spacers for insertion into my RB67, Fuji, Holga, or Zero Image medium format cameras so I could shoot 35mm film in them.

For the first image, I put the spacers in a Holga pinhole camera for an image I used for last year's World Wide Pinhole Day (last Sunday in April).

I shot the second image, with a wide-angle lens on a digital camera.

I could have easily shot either image with 35mm film in my RB67.


Pinhole Panoramic by Narsuitus, on Flickr


Panorama by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[MattKing]

I just purchased grip handle for my RB67. Also attached the prism finder that I previously had. 90mm lens.

It weights 3.9kg (8.59 pouds) with that setup.

Holy crap that is heavy. I'm not a weak arm but still I can count seconds how long I can keep the camera steady with one arm. Maybe for 35mm panorama street photography I would need some other camera

The grip plus a WLF and a shortened neck strap works quite well.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The grip is on my "must get" list for my RB67. I've got a side grip around, though, I might give it a try out before spending money on the specific Mamiya accessory. Got a neck strap for it that I haven't even unwrapped yet (ordered it right after the last time I had the camera out). If there's money left from my darkroom project, I hope to get the 65 mm and 50 mm lenses, then save up for the longer ones. A 50 mm on 24x67 frame should be spectacular.

Say, will an RB fire the mirror with no lens attached? If so, a pinhole body cap might be fun (not very wide angle, but body caps are much cheaper than wide angle lenses).

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

The grip is on my "must get" list for my RB67. I've got a side grip around, though, I might give it a try out before spending money on the specific Mamiya accessory. Got a neck strap for it that I haven't even unwrapped yet (ordered it right after the last time I had the camera out). If there's money left from my darkroom project, I hope to get the 65 mm and 50 mm lenses, then save up for the longer ones. A 50 mm on 24x67 frame should be spectacular.

Say, will an RB fire the mirror with no lens attached? If so, a pinhole body cap might be fun (not very wide angle, but body caps are much cheaper than wide angle lenses).

50mm lens combined with 35mm film in the RB67 is a great combo and what I've generally used for most of my landscape and city panoramas. However, once you've put your hands on a 37mm and shot it with 35mm film its pretty intoxicating. I didn't think I would like it as much as I do.

I'm fairly certain the RB67 fires the mirror with no lens in it. I've seen pinhole shots people have made with just the body cap so it must.

Jeremy

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, here's the thing. A 65 mm lens isn't too expensive, even a 50 mm is more or less in reach -- but the last 37mm I saw for RB67 was something like $1500. That won't happen any time soon. I'm blowing my wad on getting the contractor work done on my darkroom..

 

[Ariston]

I own a GX617 but often am shooting panos with my RB67 due to not having to lug around a 1-trick pony like the GX617.

Some more thoughts on this subject here:

https://www.jeremymuddphoto.com/blog/2020/3/4/how-to-35mm-panoramic-film-images

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,

Your shots are great. I read a bit of your blog on the subject (excellent job!). Just so you know, the 120 backs work just fine for this application... sharp as a tack. There may be issues if you are shooting close up and wide open, but I’ve never had a problem using standard 120 backs.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Hi Jeremy,

Your shots are great. I read a bit of your blog on the subject (excellent job!). Just so you know, the 120 backs work just fine for this application... sharp as a tack. There may be issues if you are shooting close up and wide open, but I’ve never had a problem using standard 120 backs.

Thanks!

I would be curious to see a side-by-side test of the same images shot with a 220 and a 120 back. I totally understand what you are saying, and have heard that sometimes from others, but I've never shot it in a 120 back.

Given that other cameras (like my GX617, C220 and Kowa Six) that can shoot both 120 and 220 require an adjustment or turn of the pressure plate to switch between the two films due to the difference in backing paper versus no backing paper as it relates to film plane - I wonder if there has to be a perceivable difference in sharpness between using a 120 and 220 back.

This could be fun just to try out as a project. I've got a stockpile of Pro-Image 100 film in 35mm. I may load a roll each in a 220 and 120 back and shoot identical images with the same RB67 ProSD body/lens combo on a tripod and see how they perform. I can develop them both at the same time in my Paterson tank to eliminate any possible developing differences and do identical scans with the same settings for each.

You're probably correct but it would be interesting to quantify it.

Jeremy

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Well, here's the thing. A 65 mm lens isn't too expensive, even a 50 mm is more or less in reach -- but the last 37mm I saw for RB67 was something like $1500. That won't happen any time soon. I'm blowing my wad on getting the contractor work done on my darkroom..

I picked my 37mm up late last year for @ $900 USD. It was super mint and included the case, caps, and rear UV filter. It looked like it had never been used. You are right - prices have been crazy on them. There are still deals to be had out there if you are willing to accept less-than-perfect:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Exc-4-in-C...105868?hash=item5b71e8cbcc:g:m6EAAOSw5ulejHuR

Also, if you aren't in a hurry and are spending your money on construction, it may just be prudent to wait. I unfortunately see a bit of a down-turn in used film camera equipment due to the impending financial crises. Equipment for hobbies that require disposable income will probably plummet in pricing once again to become a buyer's market.

Jeremy

 

[Donald Qualls]

Maybe next year I'll be able to spend that much all at once -- or maybe after my construction, if it doesn't eat my tax refund, too.

 

[Ariston]

Thanks!

I would be curious to see a side-by-side test of the same images shot with a 220 and a 120 back. I totally understand what you are saying, and have heard that sometimes from others, but I've never shot it in a 120 back.

Given that other cameras (like my GX617, C220 and Kowa Six) that can shoot both 120 and 220 require an adjustment or turn of the pressure plate to switch between the two films due to the difference in backing paper versus no backing paper as it relates to film plane - I wonder if there has to be a perceivable difference in sharpness between using a 120 and 220 back.

This could be fun just to try out as a project. I've got a stockpile of Pro-Image 100 film in 35mm. I may load a roll each in a 220 and 120 back and shoot identical images with the same RB67 ProSD body/lens combo on a tripod and see how they perform. I can develop them both at the same time in my Paterson tank to eliminate any possible developing differences and do identical scans with the same settings for each.

You're probably correct but it would be interesting to quantify it.

Jeremy

That's a good idea, and I may try it if I can get over my bout of laziness. If I had to guess, I would say changing the plate is necessary for critical focus when shooting close and wide open. I actually use a 220 back sometimes on my 500cm when shooting 120, with no problems - even when pixel peeping. Or is it called grain peeping?