RB67 versus SQ-A versus Pentax 67

[bluedog]

I'm looking to take the leap from 35mm into MF in the near future. I like the look of 6 x 6 and 6 x 7 and have been looking at the different camera models available for $500 or so. I realise the that selection may well be a compromise in the end, but can anyone offer advice on the above mentioned models. In particular, how will they go for spares and repairs down the track? The camera will be used for family, landscape shots and I hope to take it along to document a long road trip throughout Australia.
Any advice or comments appreciated.
Greg

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Welcome to APUG, Greg, from another Melburnian. You will love the leap from 35mm into MF. My only MF experience is with a Hasselblad 500 C/M, which I love. Sorry I have no experience with the cameras you asked about. Hopefully you can join us some time when we have an APUG get-together in Melbourne or nearby. By the way, maybe you could post an intro in the "Introduce Yourself to the APUG Community" forum.

 

[wildbill]

this just came up recently. try the search window.
For what it's worth, i have a 67II and the sq-a. I've used the rb once and it's a beast but managable. I love the pentax and the lenses are exceptional. If you get the pentax, get the strongest tripod and head you can carry/afford. The curtain shutter slaps like an angry mother! The only thing i don't like is you're stuck with one film once you load the camera. I'll eventually get a second body for color work. If you get the sq-a, get the newer ps lenses to go with it. the coatings on the older ones don't handle flare very well. If you always use a hood and never have bright backlit shots, forget the last sentence. The backs for the sq are cheap so shooting more than one film type is doable. You can get an entire sq setup for the price of a pentax body. Don't forget the bronica gs-1 in the 6x7 format. harder to find but same design as the sq-a.
vinny

 

[epatsellis]

Once you get used to the size, the rotating back and stability (due to the mass) of the RB will win you over. Extremely well dampened mirror, inexpensive lenses (stick to C lenses or newer KL) and fantastic image quality are bonuses.


erie

 

[David H. Bebbington]

On spares and repairs - all 3 models are discontinued, Bronica no longer exists period, Pentax has ceased production of all film cameras, Mamiya has canned the RB67 but still makes the RZ67. The expectation must be that the manfacturers will maintain servicing for around 5 years and then sell off stocks of spares to independent repairers, who will continue to service these cameras indefinitely until stocks of parts are exhausted. All 3 cameras have the potential to last for many years, given light and sympathetic use.

Regards,

David

 

[Nick Zentena]

Bronica is part of Tamron. So Tamron is responsible for Bronica.

The three cameras are very different. The Pentax is closest to a 35mm type camera just bigger. The other two are system cameras that can be configured how you like. But still very different from each other.

Parts and services? Enough old cameras exist that you should be able to get replacement used parts for quite a while. Prices are so low these days that buying etc backs,bodies etc when you find them cheap isn't a bad idea.

 

[Tomchy]

I love my SQ-A. I've slowly built my medium format setup over the past few months and finally have it where I want it. I have the sq-a body, unmetered prism, 2 120 backs, 1 220 back, a 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm. All of this has ended up costing me only $500. The lenses and backs for the sq-a are so cheap it's rediculous. Check out keh.com!

 

[bluedog]

Once you get used to the size, the rotating back and stability (due to the mass) of the RB will win you over. Extremely well dampened mirror, inexpensive lenses (stick to C lenses or newer KL) and fantastic image quality are bonuses.


erie

I must admit that the RB was initially my first choice - rates very high in all reviews and is built to last. However, most reviews mention the 'weight' factor. Is it possbile to hand hold this camera for some shots or is it only for use with a tripod?
Greg

 

[epatsellis]

I hand hold mine all the time, even with the longer lenses. You should try to get your hands on one and see if it's to your liking before you purchase it. I've used RB's since the early 80's and would be lost using anything else. In fact, I, until recently, had a Hassy outfit, and ended up selling it, as I never used it.


erie

 

[panastasia]

The RB is no problem to hand hold. I discovered that I can hand hold a large portable flash unit (unattached to the camera) and handhold the camera at the same time. I rest the camera on the forearm of the hand holding the flash unit and work the camera with the other hand while the film back rests against my chest. Sounds awkward but it really wasn't. It's faster when the flash is attached, though. I don't have big forearms and I like the weight of the camera - I was able to get extremely sharp photos on a speedboat that was constantly rocking in rough water (using fast shutter speed), hand held - I think the weight was a positive factor that day. I didn't expect any of the photos would be good, but all were sharp. I can also get sharp photos a 1/15 sec because of the weight.

Paul

 

[Iwagoshi]

Greg,
For me it was about composition. I went from 35mm to 6x6 for the challenge of trying to active that square box. With rectangles you have the option of vertical or horizonal, obviously not so with the square.

Terry

 

[keithwms]

I'm a big proponent of the rb67 and have used it very happily for along time. Among it's greater attributes: you can put a 6x8 back on the thing, it is bellows focusing which means it super for macro with any lens, and the lenses are very nice and affordable. It is the kind of camera that will outlive you. And if you do decide to "upgrade" to an electronic rz67, you can use most of your rb lenses on that, albeit in purely manual mode.

I agree that an rb can be handheld but wouldn't recommend it for any length. I walked around Manhattan with it handheld, using the proper grip, and its doable but not pleasurable. I mean, compare to a Mamiya 6/7/7ii for that purpose and... well frankly I think there is no comparison to those in medium format when it comes to handheld travel / documentary / hiking etc. But the RB's bulk comes to your aid when shooting in windy conditions. There are have been several times that I've used it in lieu of a 4x5 or larger bellows camera just because of its fabulous stability, its speed, and the ease of composition and metering.

Recently one of my rbs is getting a lot of use by students in my trad. photo class, they love it. The are shooting some leftover polaroid 665 on it and, man oh man, I admit that I am envying some of their negatives. They are getting gorgeous big squares that really give LF a run for its money, I am serious!

Also consider the mamiya 645 system. On of the greater curiosities in that system is the fast 80/1.9 lens which is very inexpensive. Recently I bought and AFD an have been using older manual lenses with it, with very satisfying results. And actually the AF isn't half bad.

 

[bluedog]

Thanks for the quick response. Are there any known problem areas I need to look for in a used RB? I wouldbe hoping to get a Pro S model or SD if possible. By the way I like the idea of not being dependent on a battery.
Greg

 

[keithwms]

Get the SD, why not. About the same price. That gives you access to some of the newer wider-throat lenses and there are a few extra frills.

Do definitely get a dual cable release with it. You will want that for MLU. Also check out some motorized 6x8 backs. Definitely get a polaroid back for ease of rapid learning, especially if this is your first bellows camera. N.b. you can run the Fuji instant pack films through the polaroid back.

 

[Iwagoshi]

Greg,

You probably know this but with 120-6x7 you will only get 10+ shots, 220 you'll get 20+ but there are not a lot of 220 film on the market. So be on the look out for spare 120 backs...with a dark slide.
Some sellers sell slides seperately (sneaky bastards). Try saying that 3-times fast.

@Keith; But I will admit that that big-ass 6x8 negative has me intrigued.

 

[k_jupiter]

RB backs are cheap. They usually need a rework in the seal department, but that's self doable and cheap. The problem with the Professional model is the age. They are all over 30 years old and many have been beat to hell by wedding and commercial photogs. The ProS is a bit nicer, has some shooting interlocks that help keep you from shooting the back of your film slide, but other than that are pretty much the same as the Professional. SD? Lot of money here in the states compared to the ProS. I have one ProS, one user Professional and one body for parts if I ever need them.

I have a nice collecton of lens, combination of C and non-C types. With the lens hoods on, you cannot tell the difference in most lighting conditions.
The cameras are heavy, but only in comparison to 35mm or 645s. Compare them to 4x5 or 5x7 field camera and you'll appreciate how well they travel. I do shoot hand held when the mood hits me for some street shooting. I have a neckstrap and I place a grip on the bottom of the camera. Those two points give me a ton of stability. I prefer to shoot hand held with the 50 and 65mm lens.

6x7? It's great format. I also occasionally take the C220 out so I do get some square shooting done. Takes a change of 'eye' but that's what makes it interesting. What you will find out is using either of these formats will color your vision of 135. I just don't shoot it very much any more. The Nikon has been sitting for months now. 135 doesn't have the tonal range (B&W) I now expect of my negatives. The 6x6 and 6x7 approach what I expect out of my LF negatives in a convenient carrying package.

Best of luck,

tim in sunny, sunny san jose

 

[max_ebb]

There are actually only 2 K/L lenses that require the larger opening of the Pro SD; the 75mm shift/tilt lens and the 500mm lens. The rest of the K/L lenses came with adapter rings that come off for mounting on a Pro or Pro S. The disadvantage of buying a Pro SD is that you then have to use an adapter ring with all your lenses (except for the 2 mentioned above). The adapter ring fits on the lens fairly snug, so it's a bit of a PITA if you only have one adapter ring for multiple lenses. The adapter rings are hard to find, especially for a decent price.

For color work, I feel that the K/L lenses produce better results (better color contrast and saturation) than the earlier Sekor C lenses. I had an RB system with K/L lenses, and then I upgraded to an RZ body. Then I eventually upgraded to RZ lenses. The RZ lenses are spectacular for color work IMO.

People talk about the bellows being great for macro work, but the bellows aren't really long enough to focus all that close. You still need to use an extension tube (I often use both extension tubes together for a bit more than 1:1 magnification).

 

[epatsellis]

Max,
While I'm sure the KL lenses may be more contrasty, and I have never played with any of them to know. However nearly every catalog shot in the 70's and 80's was likely shot with an RB, and art directors are among the fussiest people I've ever met. I've actually had an art director hold packaging in thier hand to compare the chrome to the actual product. Sometimes more contrast and saturation aren't a good thing. I prefer a natural presentation, and often use uncoated LF lenses, just to get the shadow detail to come up a little bit.


erie

 

[JRJacobs]

Hi -

I have no experience with the Bronica, but I own both a Pentax 67II and a RB67 plus the best lenses for each camera. (I used to own a Pentax 67 also).

There are pluses and minuses to each camera. For sheer cost, the RB67 cannot be beat as you can put together a setup for very very cheap these days. If you like shooting with waistlevel finder, then the RB67 is great with the rotating back feature, something I wish the P67 had. Also, the changable backs on the RB67 make it very nice. The downside of the RB67 is the weight, and it is considerably more than the P67. I am not one of the people who tell you it is not handholdable - it definitely is and I do it all the time - but that being said, I much prefer to handhold the Pentax, which is also heavy, but nothing near the RB67.

For image quality, the Pentax SMC lenses are superior to the Mamiya C lenses, sharper with much more contrast (if you like contrast). I prefer the Pentax lenses. But many of the features of the RB67 are more convenient.

I generally use the RB67 in the studio on a tripod, and the Pentax 67 in the field.

Keep in mind one other difference, which is that Pentax 67 syncs at 1/30th of a second, unless you buy the leaf shutter lenses, so if you do alot of fill flash, that can be a problem.

I my perfect dreamworld, there would be a Mamiya RB67 body that is light as the Pentax and takes the Pentax lenses.

At the end of the day, however, both cameras are very good, tried and true MF systems and will deliver excellent results.

If money is more of a problem, you can get more bang for your buck from the Mamiya.

 

[PhotoJim]

I have an SQ-A, 3 120 backs, 2 220 backs (that are due to arrive any day now), a 50/3.5 PS, an 80/2.8 S and a 150/3.5 S. I'm very happy with the system so far.

Eventually I'll get an SQ-AI body so that I have TTL flash capability.

6x6 works for me; I like the square format. If I want to shoot rectangular shots I don't have to tilt the camera either.

 

[vdonovan]

I'm an SQ-A user. I love the camera but I do wish it had a rotating back (and a 6x8 back? i had no idea the RB had such a thing. I would love a 6x8 back).

If I had it all to do over again, I would probably go Mamiya instead of Bronica, even though Bronnie gear is incredibly cheap. (I got a 220 back for $18!).

While you can't miss with KEH.COM, I frequently see full Mamiya kits on Craigslist here, sometimes for $500 or less. Pro wedding and portrait photographers are dumping them as they move to digital.

 

[keithwms]

Not only does the rb take a 6x8 back, it is motorized and rotatable.

The drawbacks: the size is a wee bit short of 8 cm; it is substantially heavier than the other nonmotorized backs; and the ground glass doesn't see 8x8cm, so you are getting a bit more than you compose for and you have to get used to that. Nevertheless I find it very useful and seldom use the 6x7 backs any more. When you start cropping you do see a difference.

You can also shoot 2.25 x 3.25" sheet film on the rb and get wonderful 72x72mm squares on polaroid or fuji instant. This latter capability is especially nice with polaroid 665, the negs are beautiful <sniff>

 

[panastasia]

I'm an SQ-A user. I love the camera but I do wish it had a rotating back (and a 6x8 back? i had no idea the RB had such a thing. I would love a 6x8 back).

It's not a true 6x8 (56mm x 75mm) and the view screen won't cover 6x8, so it's a compromise, and the motorized back w/batteries adds weight. I use a 6x8 Graflex back, but it's only good in portrait mode w/o clipping some of the frame

 

[Doug Webb]

I would really recommend that you get your hands on these cameras before purchasing. The Pentax 67, which I have, is really more of a field camera than a studio camera, and the RB and SQ were designed more for studio work. Doesn't mean you can't use any of them anywhere, but the Pentax is a little easier to hand hold in my opinion. It is also much more like a 35mm camera in design and function. If you haven't actually seen and picked up an RB, you will be shocked by the size and weight of the camera. If you are thinking of carrying any of these cameras with a set of lenses, you will find that it will be a very heavy load. When I pack up my 67 and lenses, etc., in a backpack, I know I am carrying something and handholding these cameras can be tiring as well. If you can find a shop that has the cameras, you will probably fall in love with one of them over the others based on the way they look, work, and feel in your hands. The main thing that won me over was the big negatives, they are a huge step up from 35mm and worth the weight, expense, etc.
Good luck,
Doug Webb

 

[Nick Zentena]

Isn't the SQ a fairly common wedding camera? Or was. Other then that the RB/RZs aren't tiny -)