Suggestions for MF "upgrading"

Blooze · Jan 28, 2014

John Koehrer said:
Reasonable upgrade=yes if you're looking for a more modular camera system. There won't be any effective difference in picture quality except the slightly wider negative

I am looking for something more modular. There have been many,many times with my Yashica that I wish I could have that extra little bit of width, mainly because of the 80mm lens. I just tend to use wide or telephoto and don't really find the middle ground (like 50mm in my Pentax SLR's) useful for me. I guess I see things different and tend to shoot wide or very closeup.

Rick A said:
Blooze said:

Would an RB67 Pro-s be a reasonable upgrade from using a TLR for landscape? 4x5 is out of the question at this point.

What is it specifically that makes you think you need to "upgrade" from a TLR? Do you need lens interchangability? Is it rectangular format instead of square? Except for 4x5, my best work has always been done on square format. My favorite has always been Yashica TLRs in particular, even though these days I own Mamiya C-220 and C-330 gear with several lenses. Quite honestly, I would like to sell all that gear as I only use my Mamiya 6 folder any more. IMHO,simplicity and light weight make for more enjoyable trips in the great outdoors.

Click to expand...

To be honest I don't particularly like the 80mm lens on my Yashica. IQ is great, and I like square just fine, but the focal length just doesn't do it for me (see post #7).

Alan Gales said:

I used to own an RZ67 outfit and sold it when I moved to large format. I had the 50mm ULD, 110mm and 180mm lenses. It all weighed a ton packed together. You could carry a used lightweight Cambo or Calumet 4x5 monorail with three lenses for less weight and equal or less money invested (compared to an RB) depending upon your lens selection. I sold my 50mmULD for $500.00.

For me, the main reason for 4x5 over 6x7 is camera movements with every lens.

Click to expand...

I have thought seriously about a 4x5 with a rollback, but most of the ones I've seen you have to remove the GG to attach the rollback and that seems like a hassle. I'm not in a particularly rush to get anything done when I'm shooting and tend to take as much time as I need so I think LF would suit me at some point. I do really think that 4x5 deserves darkroom printing though and I just don't have the $$$ or place for one at the moment. Maybe in a few years.

Right now I can get a pretty decent RB67 rig for less than $500 with a body, two lenses, and two backs. My shooting isn't usually worthy of expensive glass, I've used some on my digital rigs and didn't notice a difference personally.

Xmas said:

Mamiya 6x6TLR wides and a telephoto is portable, an RB67 kit needs four legged/4WD friend.

Click to expand...

see post #20 about the weight I already carry when I'm out and about being particular about shooting. I'm not planning in hiking 10 miles through the mountains with it, but I can carry my pack as it is now all day long.

Shawn Dougherty · Jan 28, 2014

Blooze said:
I am looking for something more modular. There have been many,many times with my Yashica that I wish I could have that extra little bit of width, mainly because of the 80mm lens. I just tend to use wide or telephoto and don't really find the middle ground (like 50mm in my Pentax SLR's) useful for me. I guess I see things different and tend to shoot wide or very closeup.

To be honest I don't particularly like the 80mm lens on my Yashica. IQ is great, and I like square just fine, but the focal length just doesn't do it for me (see post #7).

I shoot 4x5 and MF. My MF kit consists of a Rolleiflex T (which has a 75mm lens) and an RB67 ProS (for which I have the 65mm, 90mm and 180mm C-lenses).

There is a much bigger difference in field of view between the 65mm Mamiya C lens and the 75mm Ziess lens than I expected. The 65mm seems much wider, due in part I'd think, to the extra 'width' of the 6x7 format.

As far as shooting things very closeup, the RB67 is much better suited to that. If by "closeup" you are referring to macro shooting the bellows focusing, extension tubes and lack of parallax error of the RB67 are certainly superior. If you are referring to focal length the RB67 has some fairly long glass available.

As has already been stated... for the money it's hard to go wrong with an RB67 ProS, some C series lenses and a couple of backs as long as you don't mind the weight. Personally, I wouldn't want to give up either.

Hope this helps!
All the best.
Shawn

Matus Kalisky · Jan 28, 2014

Since weight is not issue for you - did you consider the Fuji GX680?

Blooze · Jan 28, 2014

Matus Kalisky said:
Since weight is not issue for you - did you consider the Fuji GX680?

I like the movements that it provides. It looks like with lenses in good shape it would be out of my price range though for a MkIII model. What about service and/or parts?

Alan Gales · Jan 28, 2014

I have thought seriously about a 4x5 with a rollback, but most of the ones I've seen you have to remove the GG to attach the rollback and that seems like a hassle. I'm not in a particularly rush to get anything done when I'm shooting and tend to take as much time as I need so I think LF would suit me at some point. I do really think that 4x5 deserves darkroom printing though and I just don't have the $$$ or place for one at the moment. Maybe in a few years.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you about the roll film backs. I do own a 6x7 roll film back but I shoot my Hasselblad over it.

I don't have room for a darkroom either so I use a Harrison tent for loading film holders and a Jobo tank. I scan with an Epson V750 and if I want something big I'll send it out for a drum scan. I completely understand your preference for darkroom prints but I don't understand any difference in darkroom printing 4x5 as opposed to 6x7.

Blooze · Jan 28, 2014

Alan Gales said:
I agree with you about the roll film backs. I do own a 6x7 roll film back but I shoot my Hasselblad over it.

I don't have room for a darkroom either so I use a Harrison tent for loading film holders and a Jobo tank. I scan with an Epson V750 and if I want something big I'll send it out for a drum scan. I completely understand your preference for darkroom prints but I don't understand any difference in darkroom printing 4x5 as opposed to 6x7.

Mainly my scanner (V500) won't do 4x5 without scanning it twice and stitching in PS and I can't afford to pick up a V700, or V750, that makes it easier. Money is another reason I'm considering putting off 4x5 for a little while. I will eventually go to using 4x5 I have no doubt, but till then I want something that gives me more versatility in MF for not a lot of money.

Alan Gales · Jan 28, 2014

Blooze said:
Mainly my scanner (V500) won't do 4x5 without scanning it twice and stitching in PS and I can't afford to pick up a V700, or V750, that makes it easier. Money is another reason I'm considering putting off 4x5 for a little while. I will eventually go to using 4x5 I have no doubt, but till then I want something that gives me more versatility in MF for not a lot of money.

OK. That makes sense.

There is never a "perfect" camera but with everything you have said, I think the RB is your best bet.

Dan Fromm · Jan 28, 2014

I'm glad to see people starting to suggest 2x3 and larger press, technical and view cameras but don't fully agree with what's been said. A 4x5 Cambo (I have one, also a 2x3) isn't light. Two 4x5 standards, a board and a Graflok back weigh nearly 8 pounds.

Re roll holders, there are insertion type roll holders for 4x5 backs that go in like sheet film holders. I can think of four, in alphabetical order Adapt-A-Roll 620 (gets no respect), Calumet/Cambo, Sinar and Toyo. The Toyo is 48 mm thick, probably doesn't fit all spring backs.

OP, I gather that you want to move up in format and away from a TLR to get the advantages of a larger negative and the ability to use extreme lenses. Fine, wonderful. I've done that with 2x3 Graphics, am enthusiastic about them but am far from sure that my approach will suit your tastes or budget. An RB67 isn't for me 'cos I want at least 2x3, but if 6x7 will do for you it is, as already has been said several times, a cost-effective way to get what you say you want. If you want longer lenses than Mamiya offered for the RB (long lenses? For landscape?) there's the big Pentax or a view camera with a roll holder.

Alan Gales · Jan 28, 2014

Dan, you are right about the lightweight Cambo/Calumet weighing in at nearly 8 lbs. I should have been clearer. What I meant was a lightweight friction monorail as opposed to a heavy geared monorail. The nearly 8 lb monorail with three light lenses are still comparable or maybe a bit lighter than my old RZ and three lenses. Those RZ and RB lenses are heavy!

hsandler · Jan 29, 2014

If wide and telephoto lenses are your main concern, along with budget, then consider a Bronica/Mamiya/Pentax 645 camera. The negative is not any smaller than what your Yashicamat produces IF you tend to crop to a rectangular print. If weight is not an issue, then any of the Bronica/Mamiya/Pentax 6x7 will certainly give better results at only slightly more cost, when your V500 scanner and its limitations are factored in. And as others have mentioned, the Mamiya 6x6 TLRs are another option. A lot of this depends on what type of viewing system you prefer, ground glass or prism. The 6x7 systems get especially weighty with prisms attached.

fmajor · Jan 29, 2014

Blooze - you have a very similar set-up to what I have (dSLR plus lenses), a V500 and are coming from a TLR (mine is a Minolta Autocord).

I choose the RB67 Pro-S as well and took nearly a year to assemble my 'full' kit - a rb67 Pro-S body w/WLF in KEH EX+ condition ($150), an EXC condition Sekor C 180mm f4.5 with hood and 2 filters ($99 - eBay), a MINT nearly AS NEW Sekor C 65mm f4.5 lens with hood ($199 eBay) and a good condition (needed new light seals though they all do) RB67 Pro-S 120 magazine ($40). Also bought a couple straps and an angled grip. All together I have about $550 by the time I add in the various shipping charges.

I *LOVE* it!!!

Looking back, I would choose a Pro-SD because it accepts the 75mm T/S lens, but otherwise I really like my camera. It is heavy (and yes, I do carry mine into the mountains - with a Feisol carbon-fiber tripod!), but I'm manage it just fine.

I do plan on one day learning to wet-print to really take advantage of the 6x7 'real estate', but even with my meager scanner I'm happy with what the camera is capable of.

Luis-F-S · Jan 29, 2014

Hasselblad prices have come down so much lately, that I'd certainly pick a 500 C/M over an RB67 any day. Far superior build quality and lenses, and a whole lot less weight to carry. I think I have around 7 in the safe!

L

Dan Fromm · Jan 29, 2014

hsandler said:
... consider a Bronica/Mamiya/Pentax 645 camera. The negative is not any smaller than what your Yashicamat produces IF you tend to crop to a rectangular print.

Did you really mean that? I ask because the largest square that fits in nominal 6x4.5 is roughly 42 mm square. This seems smaller than 56 mm square as one gets from nominal 6x6.

Blooze · Jan 29, 2014

fmajor said:
Blooze - you have a very similar set-up to what I have (dSLR plus lenses), a V500 and are coming from a TLR (mine is a Minolta Autocord).

I choose the RB67 Pro-S as well and took nearly a year to assemble my 'full' kit - a rb67 Pro-S body w/WLF in KEH EX+ condition ($150), an EXC condition Sekor C 180mm f4.5 with hood and 2 filters ($99 - eBay), a MINT nearly AS NEW Sekor C 65mm f4.5 lens with hood ($199 eBay) and a good condition (needed new light seals though they all do) RB67 Pro-S 120 magazine ($40). Also bought a couple straps and an angled grip. All together I have about $550 by the time I add in the various shipping charges.

I *LOVE* it!!!

Looking back, I would choose a Pro-SD because it accepts the 75mm T/S lens, but otherwise I really like my camera. It is heavy (and yes, I do carry mine into the mountains - with a Feisol carbon-fiber tripod!), but I'm manage it just fine.

I do plan on one day learning to wet-print to really take advantage of the 6x7 'real estate', but even with my meager scanner I'm happy with what the camera is capable of.

Glad to hear you like it! I'm pretty sure I'm set on the RB67 Pro-S. For the cost of the 75mm T/S lens I could get into a 4x5 will full movements. How was the condition of your body in EX condition from KEH? Do you have a backpack or bag that you haul your rig around in that you like? How do you like the 65mm Sekor C (that's the main lens I'm looking at to start with)?

Blooze · Jan 29, 2014

Luis-F-S said:
Hasselblad prices have come down so much lately, that I'd certainly pick a 500 C/M over an RB67 any day. Far superior build quality and lenses, and a whole lot less weight to carry. I think I have around 7 in the safe!

L

Well, if I wanted modular 6x6 system that might be the ticket, but I'd rather go for 6x7 as opposed to cropping 6x6 for rectangles when I want it. I can always crop the 6x7 to 6x6 easily enough. Why would you keep 7 of them?

hsandler · Jan 29, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
Did you really mean that? I ask because the largest square that fits in nominal 6x4.5 is roughly 42 mm square. This seems smaller than 56 mm square as one gets from nominal 6x6.

Yes Dan, I really meant that. Consider an 8x10. It uses about 44x56 of the 6x6 negative. It uses about 42x53 of the 645 negative. Not much difference there. My point was all about rectangular prints, not squares.

Blooze · Jan 30, 2014

hsandler said:
Yes Dan, I really meant that. Consider an 8x10. It uses about 44x56 of the 6x6 negative. It uses about 42x53 of the 645 negative. Not much difference there. My point was all about rectangular prints, not squares.

So would 6x7 use nearly the full 55x70? That would be about 25% more.

Oh, and I do prefer using the ground glass over a prism. With my glasses and less than optimum vision correction I find the WLF's I've used much easier.

hsandler · Jan 30, 2014

Blooze said:
So would 6x7 use nearly the full 55x70? That would be about 25% more.

Oh, and I do prefer using the ground glass over a prism. With my glasses and less than optimum vision correction I find the WLF's I've used much easier.

Yes. 6x7 makes 8x10, 11x14 or 16x20 with virtually no cropping. it's the best way to make the most of your scanner.

So from everything you have written, it sounds like the RB or RZ is your clear best fit. You can use a waist level finder for both verticals and horizontals, unlike all other 6x7s.

I would also highly highly recommend investing the $80 or so to buy the betterscanning holder for your scanner. the improvement may be more significant than even the negative size increase depending on how much the focus is off on your scanner, and the glass insert takes care of wrassling with curly negatives.

Trail Images · Jan 30, 2014

As pointed out, one of the big assets of the RB & RZ are the revolving horizontal / vertical back. I find when using either my ProSD or 4x5 and the feature of just rotating the backs in the field is a real plus for me.

Regular Rod · Jan 30, 2014

Blooze said:
Would an RB67 Pro-s be a reasonable upgrade from using a TLR for landscape? 4x5 is out of the question at this point.

Any other suggestions at $750 or less for a complete kit?

Whilst any format including square can work nicely for landscape you may prefer something a little wider than 6x7. A Fuji GSW690III for 6x9 is well inside your budget and you will delight in its lens.
With the money left over you can then build yourself the ideal lightweight companion to the Fuji, a HolgAgon for 6x12 http://freepdfhosting.com/b316cbe2ff.pdf

RR

Dan Fromm · Jan 30, 2014

Regular Rod said:
Whilst any format including square can work nicely for landscape you may prefer something a little wider than 6x7. A Fuji GSW690III for 6x9 is well inside your budget and you will delight in its lens.
With the money left over you can then build yourself the ideal lightweight companion to the Fuji, a HolgAgon for 6x12 http://freepdfhosting.com/b316cbe2ff.pdf

RR

I stand by my suggestion of an RB for 6x7.

If 2x3 (6x9 in metric, but I'm in the US and don't speak metric) is the format and interchangeable lenses are wanted, its hard to beat a Century Graphic or 2x3 Crown Graphic for non-tele lenses up to around 200 mm, teles up to around 270 mm.

If 6x12 (I still don't speak metric) is the format and interchangeable lenses are wanted, a 4x5 view camera with a 6x12 back is hard to beat.

Regular Rod · Jan 30, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
I stand by my suggestion of an RB for 6x7.

If 2x3 (6x9 in metric, but I'm in the US and don't speak metric) is the format and interchangeable lenses are wanted, its hard to beat a Century Graphic or 2x3 Crown Graphic for non-tele lenses up to around 200 mm, teles up to around 270 mm.

If 6x12 (I still don't speak metric) is the format and interchangeable lenses are wanted, a 4x5 view camera with a 6x12 back is hard to beat.

I suppose it depends on how far one has to walk and carry and how much time is available for setting up. Both Fuji and HolgAgon are ready set up. The Fuji weighs 3½lbs. The HolgAgon weighs 1¼lbs.

RR

Blooze · Jan 30, 2014

Regular Rod said:
I suppose it depends on how far one has to walk and carry and how much time is available for setting up. Both Fuji and HolgAgon are ready set up. The Fuji weighs 3½lbs. The HolgAgon weighs 1¼lbs.

RR

I have no doubt about the Fuji being excellent. I've seen a lot of photos online to attest to that. With the 65mm it would be a very good landscape camera. But to be honest I like the ability to choose the lens based on the subject and although the 65mm would work for that nice wide shot it will do nothing when I need/want a telephoto. Would I like to have a MF rangefinder someday? I think so as I really like the few rangefinders I've used.

For some reason photographers seem to be afraid of any weight . Have I carried around a RB67 and it's 6 lbs yet? No. But like I stated before if I take my dSLR and my Yashica with a decent set of accessories I'm sitting between 17-18 lbs. I've carried firearms which weigh more than the RB67 through the mountains for days and days on end with a pack as well and through the fields of my hometown for a whole day (walking 8-10 miles in a day) and never had a problem. Now would I prefer to carry less? Of course! But for my current wants I think the Mamiya may suit them well. I may get one and hate it, who knows. If I do I'll sell or trade it and move on.

To be honest most of the time I'll be carrying the camera from the car to a known, close destination that I've preplanned for. Occasionally on trips if I take it and we are out and about I will carry it all the time if I think that there will be the opportunity for a great shot.

I haven't completely made up my mind yet, but am heavily weighted towards the RB67 at this point. Although I almost pulled the trigger on the fine Wista SP that was for sale over on the LFF. Somebody got a beauty there. I'm always hesitant in making larger purchases on the web and even though KEH has a great rep I've seen a handful of RB67's on their Ebay store that are EX condition that vary quite a bit in the amount of use they look like they have.

markbarendt · Jan 30, 2014

Blooze said:
For some reason photographers seem to be afraid of any weight .

Yeah, I see that a lot too.

Doesn't bother me either.

Alan Gales · Jan 30, 2014

I have a real problem with carrying weight but that's because I have had my back fused together.

A lot of photographers have a problem with weight due to age or physical limitations.

It's better to lighten the load and still shoot than to give it up completely.

Suggestions for MF "upgrading"

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency