RB67 versus C330

[ruilourosa]

friedrich kittler points to you

 

[mristuccia]

+1, but not necessary for Hasselblad, Bronica, Rollei SLRs.

Only if you have space, money and shoulders for buying and carrying a Makro lens plus some extension tubes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Only if you have space, money and shoulders for buying and carrying a Makro lens plus some extension tubes.

No, the Hasselblad is not that heavy, about the weight of a C3330.

 

[mristuccia]

No, the Hasselblad is not that heavy, about the weight of a C3330.

I know, I have both!
But sometimes I prefer the monolithic bulky nature of the C330.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

There is a certain quiet sophistication about a TLR and its genteel 'tick' of the shutter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is a certain quiet sophistication about a TLR and its genteel 'tick' of the shutter.

Nah, I like a shutter that says HERE I AM! and does not have parallax issues. The RB67, Rollei SLR, Hasselblad and Graflex meet that criteria.

 

[sixby45]

I've had both and used both for street photography and outdoor portraits. Weird I know and yeah the RB gets heavy fast, but is very handholdable and the mirror is very well damped with all that body weight. I've since gone to a smaller TLr setup but loved my mamiya kits - both are wonderful and very reasonable to pick up used. Can't go wrong with either - try one out and if you don't like it go to the other. I'd start with the RB though cause that rotating back is just fun

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I shoot an RB67. Get a good tripod.

 

[narsuitus]

Many years ago, I shot with three Mamiya 6x6cm TLR cameras (C220, C22, and C3) and three lenses (80, 180, 55).

When they wore out, I replaced them with the following three medium format cameras:

Fuji 6x7cm rangefinder with 90mm f/3.5 normal lens (left)

Mamiya 6x7cm SLR with 150mm f/4 telephoto lens (center)

Fuji 6x9cm rangefinder with 65mm f/5.6 wide-angle lens (right)

Even though I love the larger image size produced by the cameras I now use, I really miss the quiet operation and smaller size of the 6x6 TLR cameras.


Medium Format Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Which of the two rangefinders do you like better and why?

 

[sixby45]

That's a good question about the rangefinders - I still prefer the GSW 680/ 90 myself

 

[narsuitus]

Which of the two rangefinders do you like better and why?

I like the 6x9 with the 65mm f/5.6 wide-angle lens better when shooting landscapes, architecture, and group portraits.

I like the 6x7 with the 90mm f/3.5 normal lens better when shooting general photography.

 

[Edward Romero]

One thing to remember with a 6x6 you will lose a good portion of your negative if you plan on printing a rectangular print. I love using my 330 but you have to remember your shooting a square negative just like the Bronica SQ I use You will have to leave room for cropping.
The RB67 I’ve had for over 40 years you basically lose nothing. The Mamiyas both of them will seem to go on forever and pure mechanical. With my Bronica SQ I’m still a little skeptical that it uses a battery. Same with the RZ. As far as weight my 330 is an ounce heavier than my wife’s Nikon DSLR. The Bronica with prism finder and hand grip a pound heavier and the RB another pound on top of that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One thing to remember with a 6x6 you will lose a good portion of your negative if you plan on printing a rectangular print. I love using my 330 but you have to remember your shooting a square negative just like the Bronica SQ I use You will have to leave room for cropping.
The RB67 I’ve had for over 40 years you basically lose nothing. The Mamiyas both of them will seem to go on forever and pure mechanical. With my Bronica SQ I’m still a little skeptical that it uses a battery. Same with the RZ. As far as weight my 330 is an ounce heavier than my wife’s Nikon DSLR. The Bronica with prism finder and hand grip a pound heavier and the RB another pound on top of that.

Why would one regularly photograph square but print rectangular? If I have composed square, it is meant to print square. If I have composed rectangular, it is meant to print rectangular. to do otherwise is exceedingly rare. Besides we all know that Hasselblad advertised for years that "Square is the perfect format." And those of us who really know, know how true that is.

 

[MattKing]

Why would one regularly photograph square but print rectangular? If I have composed square, it is meant to print square. If I have composed rectangular, it is meant to print rectangular. to do otherwise is exceedingly rare. Besides we all know that Hasselblad advertised for years that "Square is the perfect format." And those of us who really know, know how true that is.

Thousands (millions?) of wedding photographers to the contrary.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thousands (millions?) of wedding photographers to the contrary.

I value my sanity and well being, hence I have not been a wedding photographer since I graduated college.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I value my sanity and well being, hence I have not been a wedding photographer since I graduated college.

I can't imagine how awful it must be having to deal with brides, and grooms, and in-laws, and drunken guests. When I was in business, unrelated to photography, I refused to get involved with homeowners selling only with commercial and institutional. Non-business people are ridiculously difficult to deal with. For me anyway.

 

[MattKing]

I really enjoyed being a wedding photographer.
I wouldn't consider being one again.
It is truly a young person's work.
And the current market is really different than the market I enjoyed working in.
But I did a fair amount of it, and had lots of satisfied clients.
And a square format camera, combined with Kodak rectangular aspect ratio masks used by my photo-finisher, made for an efficient and very satisfying business model.
PS All the Hasselblad wedding photographers I knew used those same rectangular aspect ratio masks too!

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

And those of us who really know, know how true that is.

I put myself among ignorant people who don't know how true it is, like greek architects and philosophers, as I consider the ideal shape the rectangle with SECTIO AUREA proportions. But hey, what do greek philosophers knew, compared to a Swedish engineer and the advertisers on his payroll!

There are indeed pictures that are exalted by the square format, but they're definitely not as many as people at Hasselblad fantasize about.

 

[jim10219]

Back on subject, I'd go with the RB67. I have both (C220) and several lenses for both. The C220 is a bit lighter, smaller, and much easier to hold (it's actually pretty ergonomic with a short neck strap that supports the camera at the correct viewing height with the WLF right below your head). But it has the downside of the LR reversed image in the view finder (not a big deal for me, but some don't like it). Plus, the RB67 has a larger negative area and changeable film backs (which is great for switching between film speeds or B&W and color). You also don't have to worry about parallax error, and some of the lenses have a focusing helix which means you won't have to worry about bellows compensation with them (unless you're doing macro). The lenses are smaller for the TLR's, but they're two of them stacked one on top of the other, which makes them kind of awkward to store in a bag.

But you can't really go wrong with either. There are differences between them, but nothing that makes one a clear winner over the other. It's all just a matter of preference. They're both among my favorite medium format cameras. They're reliable, cheap, and take excellent photos. My only complaint with either is the weight and size. But if weight or size is your primary concern, then get an old folder.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

some of the lenses have a focusing helix which means you won't have to worry about bellows compensation with them

This is nonsense: the need for exposure compensation is not related to bellows focusing, it is always needed when the lens-to-film-plane distance increases, whichever focusing mechanism is used. Bellows, helicoids or whatever else.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is nonsense: the need for exposure compensation is not related to bellows focusing, it is always needed when the lens-to-film-plane distance increases, whichever focusing mechanism is used. Bellows, helicoids or whatever else.

On the RB67's bellows focusing, exposure compensation is only required when when you get closer than a certain position for close-up photography.

 

[markjwyatt]

I cannot comment on the RB67 having never used it, but can say I always looked up to it as a great studio camera. I used the C series (C330f and C220f) for weddings and a little commercial field work, as well as for fun/artisic purposes. For the field work and fun/artistic purposes I really love the C-series cameras. I think the only medium format cameras I might prefer over them would be Hasselblad or Fuji 670/680/690 (or a classic folder perhaps). For weddings I found it a little stressful to have to worry about reloading film as compared to having film backs preloaded (I tended to shoot a lot of pictures during the reception, etc.). My dad had a Bronica SQA and it was more practical for weddings, but I still like the TLR better over all.

 

[MattKing]

This is nonsense: the need for exposure compensation is not related to bellows focusing, it is always needed when the lens-to-film-plane distance increases, whichever focusing mechanism is used. Bellows, helicoids or whatever else.

On the RB67's bellows focusing, exposure compensation is only required when when you get closer than a certain position for close-up photography.

Both of you are right - in your own way!

Marco is technically right, if you ignore the "always needed" part.
Alan is right, speaking practically (even if not technically).
Exposure is always "affected" by changes in the lens-to-film distances, but the amount of that affect is so small as to be unimportant unless and until you start working close - generally a subject to film plane distance closer than about 10x the focal length of the lens. Any greater distance won't as a matter of practicality require an exposure change, so the scale on the side of the RB67 won't show any required adjustment.
The C330 has a similar system built into the viewing system - assuming you have the right screen in and have set the focal length of the lens properly on the left side of the camera.
By the way, I've never encountered an RB67 lens that has a focusing helicoid. Some of the lenses do have internal "floating" elements that you adjust to improve performance - primarily flat field focusing - at different distances.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In the long run, you can do any kind of photography you want with any kind of camera. I've traveled and shot with everything from a Contax G2 to a Canham 5x12. You can do street photography with an RZ67 (done it - it's slow-ish, but it works), or a Rolleiflex 2.8E (also done it, works quite well). It all really depends on the skill of the operator of the tool, not just the tool.