RB67 Pro SD and film winding???

[RichSBV]

I'll get to the question in a sec. I thought some explantion was in order first...

For years now I have not-so-secretly pined for a complete RB67 Pro SD system. Even though I happily shoot 4x5, 8x10, 6x6 and 35mm, I wanted that RB system. But since the cost of a working system is so high, I've never managed to grab one... I have spent quite a bit of time looking over the camera details, all the good points it seems...

The recent discussion about RB's stoked my fire again and I did some new looking. For some odd reason, I happened to notice a remark about having to wind/cock the camera/shutter, and then wind the film back. Separately?

Does this camera of my dreams not have any interconnecting winding mechanism between the back and the body??? Could I have missed such a drawback??? If so, this would certainly kill the dream. As much as I love the RB (without owning one!), I could never see myself using one if you have to wind the camera and then the back... Please let me know if I'm wrong on this!

If I'm not wrong and my dreams have crashed, could anyone suggest a relacement? Bascially an RB67 Pro SD with an interconnected film advance/shutter cocking crank...

Thanks...

 

[Paul Sorensen]

Rich, since this is a dream, and it appears that it will remain unrequited, I suggest you not get an answer to this question. There is no reason to mess up your fantasy on such a trivial matter. Perhaps when you are ready to shop, you can ask this question again. I think that the moderators will lock the thread for you if you ask, and I recommend you do immediately before your heart is broken.

 

[VoidoidRamone]

The RZ has the interconnected film advance/shutter cocking lever... but the RZ also is somewhat battery dependant.
-Grant

 

[Dave Parker]

Rich,

Once you get used to it, it really is no big deal, I have owned a couple of them and used them in the studio, and it really becomes second nature to cock the shutter and wind the back...but sorry buddy, your dream has been shattered, as they have to be cocked and wound seperatly.

Dave

 

[RichSBV]

C R A S H...

Thanks guys...

I suppose there's always a slim chance of finding an RB in my hands to test out someday. Maybe I'm just spoiled? But separate cock & wind just doesn't sound like it would work for me. I always envisions the RB as a big (yeah, I know) 35mm replacement and that just kills the whole idea...

Yeah, I checked into the RZ system a long time ago. Many things about it I didn't like, electricity being one of them...

So, I'll either turn a blind eye and keep dreaming, or just start searching for a replacement?

Hmmm, how about an auto-winder or motor drive? That would take care f the problem! Now, tell me there's no such thing...

You guys are cruel ;-)

 

[Paul Sorensen]

You can get an auto winding back, so you would only have to cock the shutter. That should help a little.

Sorry I couldn't help you out more, I tried.

Paul.

 

[Dave Parker]

Yes, they do make a auto back for it, but again, it requires batteries and the back eats them pretty quick...I actually enjoyed my RB it was a nice camera, that was pretty easy to use and heavy enough to give ya a work out when you needed it, the thing weighs as much as a car battery LOL but takes good pictures and the Mamiya Lenses are really good

Dave

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I always envisions the RB as a big (yeah, I know) 35mm replacement and that just kills the whole idea...

How about a Pentax 6X7? It is even shaped like a huge 35mm and even has a standard 35mm style wind lever. Like a 35mm you don't get interchangable film backs, and it is battery dependent, but they last a long time and it feels totally mechanical. Great lenses and the price is actually quite affordable right now. (Not that it matters since you are looking for a camera to fantasize about, not one to own.)

 

[nick mulder]

The RZ has the interconnected film advance/shutter cocking lever... but the RZ also is somewhat battery dependant.
-Grant

... not if you use RB lenses on yer RZ (;

<-- my avatar pic was taken with this combo if i remember correctly

 

[Woolliscroft]

I have been using an RB67 for many years and the fact of having to wind the film and shutter separately is no problem. This is not a camera for fast shooting work anyway. It is too bulky for that, so an extra second makes no difference. If you want something fast which still gives 6 x 7 format and has the ease the RB revolving backs offer in switching between landscape and portrait orientation, you might want to look at something like the Pentax 67II SLR or the Mamiya 7 rangefinder (I also use the Pentax), but neither will give you the RB's great closeup capability.

David.

 

[RichSBV]

Ahh, so the dream continues, but I might have to start working out ;-)

Who can really explain personal preferences?? If you think about my preference for the C330 and that I shoot 35mm, it might offer a glimpse at why I want an RB67.

With the C330, I can shoot very fast either with waiste lever or Porro finders. One quick turn of the 'film advance' crank and push the button. And its got the bellows for close-ups. I never could find any real negatives about the C330, except maybe the limited lens selection. I wanted wider than 55 and longer than 250...

The RB67 seemed to be the perfect successor to the C330. It had everything including the wider lens selection, plus the rotating back and it was still a Mamiya. And there's something about the body style? Maybe a left-over from my original dream of a Hassy 30 years ago? Could it be "brand loyalty"? My first real 35mm was a Mamiya 1000TL...

So, along those lines, the Pentax SLR just doesn't quite fit. I hate to say it, but it's too much like a 35mm ;-) Form & function are sometimes closely related (for me).

I suppose this whole thing needs some re-thinking. Seems to be a dent in the 'function' part. Although it has the auto-winder, the added weight and bulk doesn't help. I probably should take a look around at other similar style cameras and see what they offer. Unfortunately, so many of them are no longer in production so details are harder to find...

Ohhh, for the days of being able to walk into a good camera shop and try out all those offerings in-hand....

 

[roy]

I have been using an RB67 for many years and the fact of having to wind the film and shutter separately is no problem

Take the picture, wind the film, cock the shutter, no problem.

 

[MattKing]

I worked with a photographer who shot weddings with an RB67 - including candids and handheld shots.

If I recall correctly, the procedure for cocking the shutter and winding the film can be much faster than doing the same thing using, for instance, a Mamiya C220.

 

[thefizz]

I wouldn't forget the RZ because it is battery dependent. If the battery is dead, you can still take pics at 1/400 sec. Also the film is wound on automatically when the shutter is cocked. I have been using mine (second-hand) for three years without changing the battery yet.

I absolutely love this camera.

Peter

 

[RichSBV]

It's been quite a while since I did my original research into the RB. But I do remember there was something I didn't like about the RZ. As I remember, it has it's own shutter and does not use the lens/shutter combination like the RB. This may even be a good thing? I did like the idea of the lens/shutter similar to LF and my C330. I don't know if there was anything else about it I didn't like? So, yes I'd have to take another hard look at it...

 

[stephen]

I use both RB and RZ. The two stage wind-on and shutter cocking on the RB doesn't worry me. On the other hand, I normally use the camera on a tripod with mirror lock-up, and prefer to get the mirror locked up first, and then wait for the light or the breeze to drop. The RZ won't allow this situation to continue for more than 60 seconds because it thinks that the battery drain is too great... It's not a disadvantage you think of with a battery dependent camera.

 

[nick mulder]

It's been quite a while since I did my original research into the RB. But I do remember there was something I didn't like about the RZ. As I remember, it has it's own shutter and does not use the lens/shutter combination like the RB. This may even be a good thing? I did like the idea of the lens/shutter similar to LF and my C330. I don't know if there was anything else about it I didn't like? So, yes I'd have to take another hard look at it...

the RZ has no shutter - the shutters are all leaf and located in the lenses - they are electronic (hence the battery) - however they will fire on the T setting and not use the battery for star trails and the like. Bulb uses the battery.

(Again) you can also use any RB lens on the RZ and you will not require a battery as the shutter mechanism and setting dial are all integral to the RB lenses but you cant use any AE functions on a prism finder ...

I have two RB lenses and two RZ lenses for my RZ - I rarely use the RB's but this is probably due to the way the focal lengths worked out