tell me about the RB67

Roger Cole · Aug 29, 2011

tomalophicon said:
Why don't they call 4x5 the ideal format? It doesn't require any cropping. Who came up with this term? Sounds like bollocks to me.

Someone who first marketed a 6x7 or 6x4.25 camera came up with it, I think.

It is bollocks, I agree. Nothing wrong with those sizes, don't get my wrong, but there's nothing magical about that aspect ratio either. I've been shooting a lot of square photos lately since getting a 6x6 camera, but if one will work better cropped, I'll crop it to 6.45, 6x3.9876509672 or whatever works best for the composition. Same for my 4x5 negs and 35mm.

The only reason I have a 6x7 roll film back for my 4x5 was that I found one used at the right price and didn't find a 6x9. (Nor am I looking for one now since I also got a 6x7 carrier.)

michaelbsc · Aug 29, 2011

tomalophicon said:
Why don't they call 4x5 the ideal format? It doesn't require any cropping. Who came up with this term? Sounds like bollocks to me.

They just left out the word rollfilm. It is the ideal rollfilm format, or at least as close as exists.

tomalophicon · Aug 29, 2011

Ahhh, so it was marketing . That makes a lot of sense.

So what makes 8x10 the ideal paper choice?

MattKing · Aug 29, 2011

If you ever shot weddings or studio portraits in volume on MF film, you might remember a time where some pro labs did very high quality machine print enlargements at very low cost.

An "ideal format" camera used with an eye to filling the frame with a desirable subject would yield a fairly high percentage of photos that didn't have to be cropped and would result in low cost high quality enlargements that would fit easily and quickly into the albums or folders offered for sale by the photographer/studio.

A film format which is designed to scale up exactly to standard enlargement sizes can be a very efficient tool which helps to maximise profit, and to quickly make customers happy (customers don't like enlargements that require custom frames).

If all or most of your prints are going to be custom prints, and all or most of them will be custom matted or framed, don't worry about it.

MattKing · Aug 29, 2011

tomalophicon said:
So what makes 8x10 the ideal paper choice?

It isn't ideal - it is just widely available, and there are lots of frames or folders or albums that fit it.

To step back a bit, I don't think that when it comes to film formats that "ideal" refers to some magical aspect ratio - it isn't something like the golden rectangle : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rectangle

Instead, it refers to something more like "practically useful and efficient", because all of the "ideal" formats just scale easily into the most common enlargement sizes, and therefore make it most easy to compose in the camera for full frame un-cropped prints.

EDIT 1: 4x5 is one of the so-called ideal formats

EDIT 2: something that scales easily to 8.5 x 11 is likely to become the next "ideal" format, because more and more digital photographs are being printed on to that size of (inkjet) printer. If you buy a frame from IKEA, good luck getting one that includes a mat that works with 11 x 14 - the frame that would work best with that size of enlargement comes with a mat that is designed for an enlargement from an image consistent with the aspect ratio of an APS-C sensor

Wayne · Aug 29, 2011

I like Edit#3

Wayne · Sep 1, 2011

Now I've found another local guy with a bunch of RB67 equipment he wants to sell. And unlike the other guy who seems to think they have held their value, this one knows they aren't worth much these days. My odds of getting a good deal just got better.

How much do the trigger grips usually go for? Neither of these guys has one. The only 2 I can find on ebay are about 70-75, and that seems too high when bodies are going for only a few dollars more more.

tomalophicon · Sep 1, 2011

Thanks Matt King.

MattKing · Sep 1, 2011

Wayne said:
Now I've found another local guy with a bunch of RB67 equipment he wants to sell. And unlike the other guy who seems to think they have held their value, this one knows they aren't worth much these days. My odds of getting a good deal just got better.

How much do the trigger grips usually go for? Neither of these guys has one. The only 2 I can find on ebay are about 70-75, and that seems too high when bodies are going for only a few dollars more more.

The secret is to look for a Mamiya C330 grip.

Dead Link Removed

It works with the RB (and possibly the RZ?) as well.

mwdake · Sep 2, 2011

How much do the trigger grips usually go for?

I don't know what the difference between the RB Left grip, the C330 and the M645 Deluxe Left Grip are supposed to be but I have 2 of the M645 grips that came with the 2 M645's I have and they both fit my RB and work perfectly.

KEH has the M645 grips for $10.

Wayne · Sep 3, 2011

Thanks! Seems like some folks on fleabay are charging even more for these alternatives ($119!!!!) than some are the RB67 grips , but some of them are also available much more cheaply. Great ideas.

chassis · Sep 3, 2011

This is a fairly complete RB67 system for a reasonable price. Probably could negotiate a lower price. It includes a left hand grip.

http://phoenix.craigslist.org/cph/pho/2567656011.html

CGW · Sep 3, 2011

chassis said:
This is a fairly complete RB67 system for a reasonable price. Probably could negotiate a lower price. It includes a left hand grip.

http://phoenix.craigslist.org/cph/pho/2567656011.html

Reasonable? Try around 1/2 that. If it's an RB Pro with old RB Pro backs, possible non-C lenses, and possibly busted metered finder--we're looking at a very old pile of gear. Pix suck. Looks like an estate buy someone snagged for 300-400 bucks tops.

My problem with all these LH grips, aside from the hard-to-find version with the twist grip, is no tripod mounting option.

homeiss · Sep 3, 2011

CGW said:
My problem with all these LH grips, aside from the hard-to-find version with the twist grip, is no tripod mounting option.

I know what you mean. My LH grip doesn't have a tripod mount. Very annoying.

removed-user-1 · Sep 3, 2011

This is the grip I used on my RB67 (until recently when I sold it to a friend who now uses it on his Mamiya 645). I have a wrist injury and pretty much always use my RB67 on a tripod these days.

Anyway, this one does have a tripod socket on the bottom, on which I usually attached a monopod. I paid $25. It also has a tripod screw on top that could be used for mounting a ball head for a flash.

brucemuir · Sep 3, 2011

Wayne said:
How much do the trigger grips usually go for? Neither of these guys has one. The only 2 I can find on ebay are about 70-75, and that seems too high when bodies are going for only a few dollars more more.

I think I paid 45.00usd for the angle grip and it had the all important base plate.
70.00 is too much for the standard grip.

MattKing · Sep 3, 2011

The standard grip I have has been modified to include a tripod socket - the camera attachment screw was replaced with one with the necessary socket welded to the bottom.

mwdake · Sep 4, 2011

The 2 Mamiya grips I have do have a tripod socket on the bottom; they are not where you would expect them to be but off to the side of the screw that mounts to the camera.

Wayne · Sep 6, 2011

Ah, well the bad news. The second guy only had an old RB Pro body and backs and old, non-C lenses that hadn't been dusted in 15-20 years. But he kinda cleaned em up with his thumb for me before I could cry. :-( Think I'll have to pass on that camera, but I may get a back or two from him if he sells them real cheap, being the inferior version. At least the seals looked good. And he had kind of a neat waist level finder with a large round viewing lens, but for all I know maybe those are inferior too. Guess I'm back to guy #1 again for the camera...

tomalophicon · Sep 6, 2011

I use non-C lenses and they are fabulous.

Alan W · Sep 6, 2011

tomalophicon said:
I use non-C lenses and they are fabulous.

I've got a non c 50mm that's a beauty.Sharp.Don't be afraid of 'em.

Wayne · Sep 7, 2011

Do you clean them with your thumb? ;-)

I was under the impression C lenses were superior or at least more desirable. No?

BetterSense · Sep 7, 2011

It's almost distressing, that I can't get myself to break out the 4x5 much anymore...it's just so easy to use the RB67 instead. Only for compositions that demand lens movements do I use the 4x5 any more...given the focusing bellows of the RB67, and the immense coverage of most of the lenses, it's a shame Mamiya didn't include the ability to do lens tilt.

MattKing · Sep 7, 2011

Wayne said:
Do you clean them with your thumb? ;-)

I was under the impression C lenses were superior or at least more desirable. No?

More desirable? Yes

But the earlier non-C lenses are good.

The advantages of the C lenses are:

1) newer, so the shutters may not be as worn (will vary with each lens of course);
2) newer, which in a few cases means an updated design; and
3) newer, and therefore often have some or more advanced multi-coating, resulting in better performance in high flare situations.

IMHO a well kept and well maintained non-C lens is better than a C lens that has seen heavy and hard use, without the necessary maintenance.

Wayne · Sep 7, 2011

BetterSense said:
It's almost distressing, that I can't get myself to break out the 4x5 much anymore...it's just so easy to use the RB67 instead. Only for compositions that demand lens movements do I use the 4x5 any more...given the focusing bellows of the RB67, and the immense coverage of most of the lenses, it's a shame Mamiya didn't include the ability to do lens tilt.

Thats how I feel on all counts.

tell me about the RB67

Roger Cole

michaelbsc

tomalophicon

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Wayne

Wayne

tomalophicon

MattKing

Moderator

mwdake

Wayne

chassis

CGW

homeiss

removed-user-1

brucemuir

MattKing

Moderator

mwdake

Wayne

tomalophicon

Alan W

Wayne

BetterSense

MattKing

Moderator

Wayne

tell me about the RB67

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

removed-user-1

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency