RZ67 or

[Terry Breedlove]

I have an old old RB67 that still performs fantastically. Recently I have been shooting film more and more again for portraits. I came to the conclusion that if I am going to try and make all my digital shots look like film I might as well shoot film. I have owned my RB forever and love it but I only have the 90mm. I almost bought a 127 f 3.8 lens from KEH for about $100, but I started to think that what I really want is the RZ67 pro 2 with 110 f 2.8 kits I see on Ebay for $750 to a grand everyday. Please RZ/RB owners give me your honest assessment is the RZ67 that much better ? I hear it is lighter which would be nice in the field.

 

[CGW]

Have an RB67 Pro S, a 90mm and 150/3.5 KL. Couldn't be happier. Get a 127 or a 180, the latter being common and very affordable now. Not sure what's left but KEH was selling new 180s for peanuts recently.

 

[SuzanneR]

The RZ is lighter, but not much. It can be easier to use handheld (though whenever I use mine that way, my back complains!), but it's a bit more streamlined than the RB with just one lever to pull between shots than two like the RB. The 110mm on the RZ is a fantastic lens for portraits. I love mine. I have several examples in my gallery that were made with that combination, and I alternate it with a Mamiya 7. I rarely close down past F4 on the RZ, the out of focus bits are velvet. You might see about renting or borrowing one before taking the plunge.

 

[2F/2F]

The main advantage over the RB is a handful of lenses (50 and 110 among them), and slightly faster and less fiddly operation. And on the Pro II, you also get the in-between shutter speeds.

Your RB lenses will work on the RZ, but RZ lenses won't work on an RB.

$750 to $1,000 is WAY too high. Try half that. I got my kit with the 110, two backs, and a 220 insert for $475, I think. And that was in mighty fine shape.

I wouldn't bother getting one unless you must have that 110, or the fancy 50.

 

[Marc B.]

A basic RZ Pro II kit; body, one back, WLF, and one lens, in excellent condition, should be no more than about $700...tops.
The weight difference between an operating RB and RZ is only about a half pound...6 lbs vs 5.5 lbs. Not that much difference.

The 110mm is a great lens, but I'm not sure the use, or want, of one lens is worth swapping to another camera.
I'm a Pro II RZ'r myself, so I wouldn't fault your decision to swap-up. Lately however, there have been some
great prices on 150mm SF (soft focus) lenses, and also on 127mm f:3.5 lenses for the RB. About $150 ea.
For portraiture with the RZ, I prefer the 127, 140, or 180....but that's me.

If you just want to test the waters with the 110mm or the 50mm ULD, the standard RZ's go for much less than Pro II's.
Remember too, that either of the RZ's have stepless shutter speeds when used with an AE prism in aperture priority mode.

Portraiture with flash or strobes is still done manually, w/WLF, just like with your RB, as the only way I know
to do automatic ITTL exposures with an RZ is with an expensive, and/or hard to find Metz flash system,
dedicated specifically to the RZ, and with an appropriate AE prism attached.

The AE prism's can be used for automatic exposure control in natural light and hot light,
(continuous lighting) portraiture, still life, street, or landscapes.

So, if flash/strobe portraiture is your main game, the half second shutter speed of the Pro II could be of [some] use to you.
Otherwise, try the standard RZ. You should be able to find a nice 110mm RZ Pro kit for around $400-$500.

Some other notes on standard RZ Pro, to RZ Pro II compatibility:
The AE Chimney finder only works on the standard RZ Pro, not on the Pro II.
There are separate AE prism's. One for the RZ Pro, and another for the RZ Pro II.
The Pro II prism will work on either RZ, but the prism for the standard Pro won't work on the Pro II.
(MAC did once perform up-grade modifications on Pro AE prism's for use on Pro II's, but I think that service has ended).

Same story with winders, Pro for Pro, Pro II with either.
Besides the half second shutter speeds, the Pro II also has a fine focusing knob and gear, which is easily [and usually] stripped.

With film backs, I have had better luck with the Pro II backs, however, unlike the differences identified above,
any RZ film back will work on any RZ body, though, the inserts from the backs are not interchangeable with the opposite shells.
Pro inserts only fit in Pro magazine shells, and Pro II inserts in Pro II shells.

Unless I forgot something, basically everything else about the two RZ's is the same.
Tilt shift adapter, focusing screens, WLF's, grips, extension tubes, tele-converter, and the whole set of over 17(?) lenses
works on either Pro, Pro II, and Pro IId.

The Pro IId will accept, IIRC, only two (2) specifically designed digital backs, directly to the camera body.
Any other backs will need an adapter plate just like the other RZ's need when attaching a digital back.
I don't have a digital back, so I will let those that do, [Own-and-Use digital backs on the RZ], elaborate further.

 

[lesm]

I came to the conclusion that if I am going to try and make all my digital shots look like film I might as well shoot film.

Amen, brother! Someone should make a T shirt out of this. Such brilliance, so understated, love it!

 

[Danielle]

I own a RB ProSD just with a 127mm kl lens at the moment, its my baby and I'll never ever get rid of it. Plan to get a couple more lenses this next year.

I have thought about getting the newer RZ for the better capability with the D 'f word'. But I wont. I'll stay with using the RB for analog, for the RZ's other benefits don't matter to me. I can rest in the knowledge that I'll never need batteries for the thing. I guess I'd recommend anyone with a good example of an RB of any type to do the same.

 

[keithwms]

There are two very good reasons to possess the RZ: the 50mm ULD and the 110/2.8. Okay, one more good reason: it can take your RB lenses!

I still use my RBs though; I love the 6x8 back and the bargain prices on lenses and other items. And the lack of battery to fuss over!