I have the lenses from 55mm to 180mm and everything in between for Mamiya twin lens (black with chrome noses) and the performance of them all is really good. None disappoint, though they are a bit flarey I count myself lucky in this respect as Mamiya's qc wasn't all it could have been. The handling of the camera is 'all over the place' - helped slightly with a grip and Porro prism to give a 3-point support. I think I'm more likely to take a sharp hand-held photo with a Pentax 6x7 than a C-series tlr (with a comparable normalish lens) - but both are fun to use.
RB67 vs. 501CM
-
A
- Thread starter SodaAnt
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zorki C & coated Rodenstock Yvar 50mm f/3.5
- Started by varg
-
For Sale 2 11x14 contact printing frames
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale 8x10 acros
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuij GA-645Zi - Gorgeous
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
I have the lenses from 55mm to 180mm and everything in between for Mamiya twin lens (black with chrome noses) and the performance of them all is really good. None disappoint, though they are a bit flarey I count myself lucky in this respect as Mamiya's qc wasn't all it could have been. The handling of the camera is 'all over the place' - helped slightly with a grip and Porro prism to give a 3-point support. I think I'm more likely to take a sharp hand-held photo with a Pentax 6x7 than a C-series tlr (with a comparable normalish lens) - but both are fun to use.
The first is issue is whether you prefer square or rectangular format.
And with the correct film back mounted on the 2x3 Graflok mount, the RB67 will do both.
It's sure a lot of camera to carry around for 6x6, though, especially given how small most dedicated 6x6 cameras are, and that the RB67 is really a 7x7 camera to allow for the rotating back(IIRC, you can even throw a 6x8 back on there if you're so inclined, but never tried it).
Even 10 years ago, when I first used an RB67, I'd have said that if you have the camera out anyway, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to shoot smaller than 6x7. Back then, though, a roll of E6 film was around $10 and I could usually find processing for $5-6. Tri-X if I remember right was a little over $20 for a 5 roll box, and a gallon of D76 was about $7. With that economy, the extra 2 frames from 6x6 didn't make sense to me in a camera capable of shooting a larger format, especially given that if printing or otherwise presenting in a common rectangular format, 6x7 requires very little cropping and 6x6 effectively turns into 645, so it's giving up a lot of image area for not a lot of film savings. The math looks a little different with a single roll of E6 now approaching $30, and processing often $10+, or with Tri-X now around $50 a box.
Oh, no doubt -- but IMO it's not much to carry to have a 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6xwhatever the baffles allow on a 6x9 roll back (Graflex 23) compared to, say, a Mamiya 645, Yashicamat, and Texas Leica. I really want get another 220 back and permanently modify it for 35 mm cassette-to-cassette, with a film cutter to allow unloading and reloading in the field (not sure how to light seal the moving cutter yet). Shoot on 35 mm with a 65 mm or 50 mm lens (never mind with my .45x wide filter) means I also don't have to carry (or pay for) an Xpan.
And I've got just over $1000 into my system, total (don't have a 65 mm, 140 Macro, or 250, don't even want a 37 mm fisheye -- but I do have all three finders, with a meter in the chimney, and both macro tubes plus left hand grip that seems to lighten the camera a couple pounds compared to supporting on only a neck strap). And all of this works exactly the same whatever lens or finder or film back I have mounted (aside from the fact some of my Graflex roll backs have knobs to advance instead of levers).
No argument there either.
I have a relatively new to me Century Graphic that belonged to a friend and was his main camera back in the 60s prior to getting a 500C(that I also have...). He tricked it out a bit with a Schneider lens in a Linhof shutter. He had a few 6x9 and one 6x7 back for it(collection of knob and lever advance). Over the years I've ended up with both Mamiya and Graflex backs in 645, 6x6, and 6x8 to add to that.
Granted it's a royal pain to frame for all of those. My friend had grease penciled lines for 6x7 onto the ground glass back when he was still using it, but I don't want to clutter it up too much by adding lines for all the other formats especially as I don't see shooting them. 6x9 isn't bad on the camera since the "peephole" finder is masked for it and the wire frame also show it, but for any other format it's a matter of putting the GG on it, composing/focusing, taking it off, putting the roll film back on, shooting, and then repeating it all again. At that point I'd rather get the biggest negative I can, even if it means only 6 per roll(on 6x9), go to sheet film(admittedly limited in 2x3 these days) since that allows me to use the GG without removing it, or just say forget it and go to 4x5...
It certainly is a wonderfully flexible camera, though, in a lot of ways.
The main limitation of the Century (to me) is needing to either recalibrate the RF or use the ground glass if I mount any lens other than the 105 mm that it had when I got it. I do well enough for my eye and needs eyeballing the smaller formats (but I get 8 on a roll with 6x9?!). With an SLR like the RB67, if the viewfinder is in focus, the film is as well. And in theory, I can use my 2x3 Grafmatics with the RB, too (though as you noted, there's little variety in 2x3 film these days -- pretty much Fomapan 100 and 400 or FP4+ and HP5+).
No disagreement on any of your points, and yes sorry my math was off on 8 frames of 6x9. I have a roll in a 6x9 back now, but it's the first roll I've actually shot in that format for awhile.
I have actually put a Graflok spring back on an RB67. I had a body that I was having issues getting good focus from, and I used the ground glass to check focus accuracy. Turns out part of the issue with that particular body was I THINK it had an aftermarket screen, or otherwise just a really bright one, and it was super easy to get an aerial image. That's certainly not an RB67 specific problem-I have Rick Oleson BriteScreens in two of my Hasselblads(one 500C and one 500EL/M) and I'm constantly cross-checking myself against the focus aid or even attempting parallax focusing against the screen grid. As much as I appreciate the bright screens, I'm not planning on changing out the original ground glass/fresnel in my more recently acquired 500C(although I find the fresnel lines super distracting under magnification-my first 500C body is a lot older and had a condensor lens under the screen that didn't give visible lines but also dimmed the edges badly).
When I got my first 2x3 Crown back in 2009-and mine was a chance purchase at an antique store-the only 2x3 sheet film I could find was Efke 50. I still have a box out in the freezer, and I have a bit of a love hate relationship with Efke film in all formats. I always appreciated how sharp it could be and the very "old" look of it, but even in sheets it curled like nothing I've ever used. I've shot 50s and 60s Kodak film that were badly curled before developing, but straighted out fine after. That camera also does not have a Graflok, so sheets were my only option, and I had extra fun developing it. I ended up using a Yankee Clipper tank and filing a notch to allow it to "snap" into the right position for 2x3 sheets.
But yes, in general, a Century does have a lot of limitations if you want to change lenses. I don't particularly enjoy handheld ground glass shooting.
Whoa, haven't tried that -- that would let me use regular 2x3 film holders! Hadn't occurred to me to try because a 4x5 Graflok focusing panel depends on those two lugs on the sides, which aren't supported on the RB67 mount.
I have one of those Polaroid instant film adapters that go on the back of my RB67. Does anyone know if there's any Polaroid type film available that will work with it still?
Unfortunately no at least that I'm aware of with Fuji killing off FP100C in 2015 or so(don't remember exactly when).
I shot a pack of FP100C in my RB67 when I still had it. FP100C was a better film IMO than any of the Polaroid films ever were, and lens quality on a good MF camera-really any of them-wipes the floor compared with higher end Polaroids like the 250 that, IIRC, at best had a triplet lens.
RBs are great for this, too, since you're getting a lot closer to actually filling the full frame than you are with a 6x6 camera. At the time I was playing with this stuff, I had a pretty limited stash of FP100C and was a bit judicious with where/when I used it since it was starting to get hard to find. I didn't really want to burn a pack of it on 6x6...
I agree, there hasn't been a source of 3x4 peel-apart pack film in a long time, and it's over $100 a pack (probably a lot over by now) on eBay. There was a company selling single-print packs, 3 prints for $60 or so, hand assembled from leftover 8x10 materials, but I'm not sure if they're still running. Best I'd suggest is look at one of the Instax Square backs for the RB67. The film is pretty good, inexpensive, and readily available, and you'll save the price of the back in three or four packs of prints compared to expired FP-100C.
I hadn't kept track of current prices, but I'm not surprised FP100C brings that.
I cleared mine out in 2018 and was getting $50/pack for it then(I figured I'd rather sell and buy more film than use something that was more a curiosity to me). The last few shots I took with it were definitely showing a bit of color shift compared to when it was in date, and that was only ~2 years past expiration for film that was bought quite literally from a just-arrived shipment at Freestyle and refrigerated from the day it arrived at my house.
Aside from that, though, nearly 10 years out from the last production, I'd be skeptical of anything available now. Even if the film is still capable of rendering an image, I've had 10 year old film(granted with unknown storage-I bought it second hand) where the chemical pod turned to powder when it was pulled. I've had others where the it had thickened/congealed enough that I got an image but the spread was definitely uneven.
One step film seems a BIT better in that regard than peel-apart, at least on my anedotal experience. Back in 1997 or so, quite literally when I was in elementary school still, I had an SX-70(one of the gray plastic ones, not the SLR folders) that I was actually thrilled to find I could get film for. Not too long after I got it, our local KMart I guess decided to stop carrying SX-70 and marked their existing stock to something like 50¢ a pack, and I scraped up the meagher allowance money I had(with a bit of kick in from my dad) and bought all 15 or so packs on the shelf. I still had some of that in ~2003 when I chanced into an SX70 SLR, and it all worked fine and kept working for the next year or two while I used up the last of it.
I just wish back in those days I'd had a concept of buying film at a real camera store and not just what was available at KMart/Wal-Mart/Rite-Aid. My real interest back then was instant cameras, going back to a Polaroid 210 I was given when I was 3 or 4. I actually didn't get to use that camera until quite a few years later(and I think I even still have part of a pack of FP100C in it) because I thought film wasn't available for it. Little did I know that even then, back in the early 90s, I could have found Polaroid roll film if I'd looked hard enough for it.
I've seen YouTube video from the past couple years of people getting actual images from Polaroid rolls. I had one of those cameras back in the mid-1970s (thrift store buy, because I'd liked the Swinger I had from about '69 to '72) and shot several rolls through it.
OP
OP
I took the RB67 and 501CM out a few days ago and used them side-by-side on identical tripods to try to get a better feel for the useability of the two.
This session reenforced my feeling that the Hassy is more ergonomic and more of a pleasure to use. The RB seems more clunky and less refined.
Based on this, I'm going to be taking the Hassy out more often and leaving the RB in the closet. I don't think I'll miss the larger negative that much, and if I do actually need better image quality, I'll take one of my 4x5 cameras instead.
This session reenforced my feeling that the Hassy is more ergonomic and more of a pleasure to use. The RB seems more clunky and less refined.
Based on this, I'm going to be taking the Hassy out more often and leaving the RB in the closet. I don't think I'll miss the larger negative that much, and if I do actually need better image quality, I'll take one of my 4x5 cameras instead.
OP
OP
In my case, it's due to the hold-down tab on Hassy mags. You pull the film off the roll over the film plane, tuck it under the tab, and then turn the key to lower the tab to hold the film in place. That makes it easier to thread the film onto the take-up spool without having to worry about keeping tension on the film to prevent it from unraveling. It just seems quicker and easier to me.
I have to check the attic, but I think I still have my last FP100C in the polaroid back for my RB67 having only taken a couple back when.
I used to have both... in the end I prefer the Hassy. Why? Lighter, smaller body and square format
For handheld shooting, the Hassy felt more umm... ergonomic
If I extensively do studio or landscape work... then yes will pick the RB67.
For handheld shooting, the Hassy felt more umm... ergonomic
If I extensively do studio or landscape work... then yes will pick the RB67.
I own a Hasselblad and have used an RB67, borrowed, for a couple of weeks. The photos I made from the RB were good, sharp, easy to compose, no issues. It's a camera I could enjoy using and enjoy looking at photos made by it.
But. There are enough situations, mostly travel related, where I would look at the size of the RB and just have to say NO.
I carried the Hassy with 80mm, and a Gitzo tripod on a 4 week walking trip in Japan last year. I had to carry the photo kit all day, every day. Couldn't have done it with the RB. Too heavy, no space in the backpack.
In a studio situation, hell yes! for the RB, but that's just not what I do very often. Good stuff, not for me.
But. There are enough situations, mostly travel related, where I would look at the size of the RB and just have to say NO.
I carried the Hassy with 80mm, and a Gitzo tripod on a 4 week walking trip in Japan last year. I had to carry the photo kit all day, every day. Couldn't have done it with the RB. Too heavy, no space in the backpack.
In a studio situation, hell yes! for the RB, but that's just not what I do very often. Good stuff, not for me.
Something I didn't see mentioned yet, but the Hasselblad CF/CFI lenses only have 5 aperture blades. I think the RZ lenses are better for portraiture with more pleasing/smooth bokeh if you stop the lenses down. The RZ lenses aperture will remain more circular where the hassleblad will have nice pentagonal bokeh "balls" if you care about that stuff.
there is a place and time for both cameras. both are top of the line cameras with very different personalities. i love my RBs but also shoot an ETRS as well as a ZENOBIA folder pocket camera. owning many different vintage cameras gives me many choices... but as for which is better or favorite?... i love them all!
Exactly. I have two 6x9 folders, two 6x6 folders, and a Zenobia, in addition to my Reflex II, RB67, and Century Graphic.
I have both. Love the Hasselblad but bought the RB67 Pro SD because I was taken by its physical gravitas and bellows. I also bought a left hand grip to help with hand-holding. But that combo really did prove to be (much) too heavy. Still, the RB has its charms. I especially like the 150mm SF lens.
I have one of those (with the full set of disks), but I've never used it with film. I don't do much portraiture, so I'm not certain when I'll use it...
Still life; glass
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |