Shoddy Sekor lens

[k_jupiter]

You can get 645 backs for an rb fairly easily. I have 3...

I have heard there are 6x6 backs for the rb, but I have never seen one, nor met anyone who ever confessed to using one.

I would say keep your C330, the 65mm lens is pretty sharp. I have done a lot of landscape stuff with the 220 and a nice older 65mm lens.

rbs are cheap, but many are beat to hell.

tim in san jose

 

[Jarvman]

Yeah, I went out today and shot some landscapes. Didn't manage to finish the whole film though. It's strange not having a distance scale you can set to hyperfocal, I'm used to not being able to preview dof from using rangefinders though. I've got a double patterson tank in the post so I can develop it later in the week when it's done. It'll be interesting to see how it's turned out. The thing I do need to invest in is a decent tripod. the one I've got now is crap. Any suggestions?

 

[k_jupiter]

It's been a long time since I picked up a C330. Is there no distance scale on the side of the bellows mechanism like on a C3 or C220? Not that I use it much, but it's nice to know that information (DOF and bellows compensation) is there.

tim in san jose

 

[max_ebb]

I explained I don't want to buy it and apologised explaining I'd pay his relisting fees to which he said there was a £15 charge for non paying bidders. It must cost him about £1-2 to relist the thing which I'm willing to pay but not £15. I'm really happy with my TLR now I've sussed out how to use it and fixed my lens thanks to this thread.

If you plan on re-selling it, you'll most likely lose more than £15 on the deal, especially if you're paying for shipping on top the selling price. £190 seems really high to me. RZ bodies in good condition with WLFs are readily available for less than half that. Also, you can't test it without a lens. You can't fully test it without a lens, film back and AE finder (if you sell it, the person who buys it might want to use an AE finder).

 

[David H. Bebbington]

If you plan on re-selling it, you'll most likely lose more than £15 on the deal, especially if you're paying for shipping on top the selling price. £190 seems really high to me. RZ bodies in good condition with WLFs are readily available for less than half that. Also, you can't test it without a lens. You can't fully test it without a lens, film back and AE finder (if you sell it, the person who buys it might want to use an AE finder).

Just for the record - where are good RZ bodies with WLFs available for less than US$200? Certainly not on e-bay, where I could only find a complete RZ Pro which had sold for £400 ($800) and a Pro II for £500 ($1000). It should be borne in mind that, with the RB/RZ67 more than almost any other camera, there are examples around which look clean but have led extremely hard lives in studios and are virtually completely worn out, in contrast to the Mamiya TLR series, where the bodies are comparatively simple, have few moving parts and may at most need attention to the winding mechanism and light seals (slight caveat - I understand shutter spares are now scarce).

Regards,

David

 

[max_ebb]

Just for the record - where are good RZ bodies with WLFs available for less than US$200? Certainly not on e-bay, where I could only find a complete RZ Pro which had sold for £400 ($800) and a Pro II for £500 ($1000).

Actually yes, certainly ebay. I find that 3 out of 4 (or more) listings on the US ebay site for MF gear are from sellers who are willing to ship to Europe and Australia, and it generally doesn't cost that much more for shipping. International bidders do drive the prices up a bit (a lot on some specific lenses), but generally, items don't go for that much more than they do for auctions that are US shipping only. I got an RZ body w/WLF in excellent condition (bidding against international bidders) for a little over $160, and I got one in very good condition (also available to international bidders) for $120. Pro II bodies go for around $500.

It should be borne in mind that, with the RB/RZ67 more than almost any other camera, there are examples around which look clean but have led extremely hard lives in studios and are virtually completely worn out

I have bought and sold used pro MF gear since the early 80's, and I would say that there's no way a camera body could have led an extremely hard life without showing significant signs of specific wear in specific places (just like you can't put 150k kilometers on an automobile without the pedals showing significant wear). There are few RB bodies around in great condition but (at least in the US) there are a lot of RZ bodies in very good to excellent condition (lots of rich kids I guess). For that matter, RB/RZ bodies are so cheap (particularly RB bodies), it's no big deal to have an extra for a backup.

 

[Jarvman]

Hmm ok, I just got my first roll of film back from it. I was expecting more in terms of shapness and contrast. I've got a feeling it's because of the time of day I was shooting more than anything, which was near dusk on both occasions to make the most of longer exposures for waterfalls and the tide. Still, the negs seem very thick. There was a nasty blue streak right the way down them until I rewashed them, that was after 20 minutes under the tap and a minute in the wetting agent. Also, there is a small magenta spot on one frame of the film. The film loaded easily and I didn't handle it roughly, however I left the masking tape on it. Any thoughts? ...

I think I'd better try taking another film in bright daylight and see what results I get then before making a decision on the camera. The results aren't as impressive as with a friends bronica iIused. I thought bronicas were a cheap mans camera and nothing to shout about. I'm beginning to lean towards buying one though for the convenience of an SLR after seeing what it produced.

 

[k_jupiter]

Hmm ok, I just got my first roll of film back from it. I was expecting more in terms of shapness and contrast. I've got a feeling it's because of the time of day I was shooting more than anything, which was near dusk on both occasions to make the most of longer exposures for waterfalls and the tide. Still, the negs seem very thick. There was a nasty blue streak right the way down them until I rewashed them, that was after 20 minutes under the tap and a minute in the wetting agent. Also, there is a small magenta spot on one frame of the film. The film loaded easily and I didn't handle it roughly, however I left the masking tape on it. Any thoughts? ...

I think I'd better try taking another film in bright daylight and see what results I get then before making a decision on the camera. The results aren't as impressive as with a friends bronica iIused. I thought bronicas were a cheap mans camera and nothing to shout about. I'm beginning to lean towards buying one though for the convenience of an SLR after seeing what it produced.

I assume you know how to use a meter so I would look at slow shutter speeds. Maybe it needs a CLA. You don't have a second lens for it?

As far as sharpness and contrast... two things come to mind. One is the need for a shade for your lens. Makes an incredable difference. Second, this lens was loose right? Perhaps someone took it apart then reassembled it without spacers. I have never taken my 65mm lens apart so I don't know what exactly is in the stack but I do know other Mamiya TLR lens have spacers in the setup. You could have some issues with element spacing in your used lens.

tim in san jose

 

[Jarvman]

Yeah, nothing wrong with the metering. What's a CLA? I have an 80mm lens on it's way to me with 'minimal dust' so we'll see what that turns out like. I'm pretty certain that the lens components are all there. Coming out of the cold and into the warm car there was alot of condensation on it though. Something to do with it being single coated? There is one shot on the film that looks alot better than the rest, that was taken earlier in the day but still in the shade behind a big pile of logs stacked up.

 

[k_jupiter]

Yeah, nothing wrong with the metering. What's a CLA? I have an 80mm lens on it's way to me with 'minimal dust' so we'll see what that turns out like. I'm pretty certain that the lens components are all there. Coming out of the cold and into the warm car there was alot of condensation on it though. Something to do with it being single coated? There is one shot on the film that looks alot better than the rest, that was taken earlier in the day but still in the shade behind a big pile of logs stacked up.

CLA Clean Lubricate Adjust.

I would go shoot in a contrasty condition, keeping the lens from being in the sun, or make up a lens shade for it and try again. If you can see how thick those negatives are, just adjust your shutter speed (close down a stop). See what happens.


tim in san jose

 

[Jarvman]

I just developed a roll of Pan f 50 I shot with it today and they're the opposite. Very thin compared to what I expected them to be. I was shooting in a forrested area in very much the same conditions as I took a roll with my friends bronica which turned out beautiful. Using ambient light meter readings. Perhaps I should have overexposed by a stop but I shouldn't have thought I'd have to. I don't know if these lenses are up to much. I think this thing will be returning to eBay before long. :confused:

 

[Greg_E]

I think I might try a different lens first. Do you know anyone that owns one of these bodies so you could borrow a good lens?

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The 65mm semi-wide lens for the Mamiya TLR's is not one of their best. In fact it (in my opinion) is way down in comparison to the other lenses available for this camera system.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I have bought and sold used pro MF gear since the early 80's, and I would say that there's no way a camera body could have led an extremely hard life without showing significant signs of specific wear in specific places (just like you can't put 150k kilometers on an automobile without the pedals showing significant wear). QUOTE]

You'd be surprised! One disappointment I had along the way was a Nikon F3 which had been used for some scientific application with a motor drive. It had been fired via the motor drive, so no wear to the shutter release, wind lever or rewind button, even the base was clean since the motor drive had been attached once only and not constantly attached and removed, indeed scarcely a finger had been laid on the camera at all except to load and unload it. It was nonetheless completely beaten up!

Regards,

David