tell me about the RB67

[tomalophicon]

Roger,
I wouldn't do it, but some things to think about:

It would save buying 2 camera systems if you wanted to shoot multiple formats without cropping (some people don't like to crop). It can get expensive buying 2 camera systems.

I think there is also no mechanical 645 SLR out there. I'm probably wrong though. Some people may prefer to shoot an all mechanical camera.

Plus like you say, you get more shots per roll of film.

 

[MattKing]

Eh, why? You could always just shoot it 6x7 and then crop to 6x4.5 when you print it. You'd waste film but otherwise it works fine. If you need a 6x4.5 camera the RB is going to be about the biggest, heaviest one you're likely to find.

The 645 backs have a couple of advantages:

1) 16 exposures per 120 roll instead of 10, and at least 15 of them all fit in the same Printfile page ; and
2) 6x4.5 slides, for those of us who don't have a 6x7 projector but do have a 6x4.5/6x6 projector.

They are large and heavy for 645 use, but not as large and heavy as taking two camera systems in order to obtain both formats.

 

[morrishilarian]

I use my 6x7 & 6x4.5 backs. They are great. I love Mamiya RB67.

 

[Wayne]

I went and looked at everything. He's got 2 Pro-S bodies, several 120 and 220 backs, a polaroid back, prism finders, "normal" view finders, and 90,127,150,180 and 250mm "C" lenses, and a couple 2x tubes or extension tubes. Since medium format is all new to me, it was all well, pretty new to me. I need to look at it again and pay closer attention to things like condition, fit, and function, because I was mostly kind of overwhelmed by the complexity compared to LF. Plus he had a zillion studio/portrait filters and some odd magnetic bellows type filter holder that he was sure I would need, that I don't think I need.

I think I want to make an offer on just the bare bones-a body, a (127?) lens, a 120 back, and a finder, because cash is in short supply. I dont think I need a prism finder AND regular finder at first-which should I go for? It would be nice to get a second lens, if not now then later. Seems like the 180 would be the best complement to the 127, huh? if I only get one lens, would 127 be the best choice? I might go back for a second lens, second back, and second finder at a later date, he is not actively trying to sell any of the stuff so it may still be around 6 months or a year from now.

 

[MattKing]

I would suggest a body, a 90mm lens, 1 (2 would be better) 120 back and a waist level finder.

Make sure the backs are Pro-S or Pro-SD backs (they are labelled as such) and that they have dark slides with them.

The 90mm, 180mm pair is a good one, especially if combined with a 50mm. A 65mm, 127mm pair is also good.

I tend to lean to shorter focal lengths. You may tend other wise. 90mm is equivalent to about 150mm on a 4x5 camera.

 

[bushpig]

Hey, Wayne. I'm with Matt as far as his set up. The 90 is an amazingly versatile lens. It's what I use (although I intend to pick up a wide-angle and a 180 eventually).

Based on your description of the seller's gear, I'm going to assume his backs are probably Pro-S, but make sure. They're much preferable over the standard backs. I'd like at least one SD back (oh, to never have to worry about light seals...), but I'm happy with my Pro-S backs.

I gather from reading this thread that you're going to be using this handheld at least some of the time, correct? I'd definitely say that you want the waist-level finder. The prism is only going to make it harder to hand-hold (although, with the weight and WLF, mine is my easiest hand-holdable camera in my opinion).

And yes, you're going to want more than one back. Definitely. If he's offering them, take them. Trust me. The more, the better. Matt is correct. Two would be better. But three or four is EVEN better. Trust me. At LEAST get 2 backs.

And to Roger: There's nothing wrong with a camera that can do multiple formats. There are times I'd love to be able to pop a 645 back onto my RB, but I don't have one. Back when I shot 35 mm, I had (I still have actually, but don't use) an original Konica Auto-Reflex (Whom I call Rex). It lets you switch between full and half-frame. I would switch to half-frame for snapshots and shoot full frame when I was shooting something more important. People may not understand the concept of a large SLR (it's NOT a small camera) that can shoot half-frame, but the option of switching whenever is the beauty of it. I certainly wouldn't want to carry around a half-frame camera (despite it's size) in addition to my large, handsome (not sexy to me as Rex is a boy) SLR.

 

[Alastair_I]

+1 on the 90mm and the 180mm. I find the 180mm is my default lens with the RB67, even for landscapes - or maybe that's jusy my reaction to the flat fenlands.

I'd agree that two standard 120 backs is the minimum, the ease of switching between two different films mid-roll on both is a convenience that it's difficult to imagine being without. I suspect I'll eventually build-up to four backs (Ektar, Portra, 400H and a spare). I also recommend the Polaroid back for that instant fix.

 

[fmajor]

Wayne i'd *definitely* get at least 2 backs. There are many times i wish i had another back - 1 for b&w and 1 for color. Maybe a 3rd as a back-up, but i'd not spring for more than that. There are times i *wish* i had a more intermediary focal length (i have a 65mm and 180mm). However, i can't offer a compelling suggestion which is more suitable/'better' of the 90mm or 127mm choices.

I chose a waist-level finder 'cause it's just plain cool! Really though, it's big fun composing images on it - the viewfinder on the RB67 is just huge compared to 35mm and the 'difference' is a treat to say the least. Maybe smaller than on LF, but still wayyyy fun!

 

[Pasto]

Sorry for being a party pooper, but I would look at a different camera. It's a great system, and fun to use, but I found the lenses the weak point of the system. I have not tried the KL versions, but the C versions rendered RELATIVELY low contrast and low sharpness negatives. I tried several of the lenses and couldn't find one that I was happy with. I did comparisons with equivalent cameras, and the negatives and equivalent prints were clearly inferior with the RB (with the 50 C and 90 C lenses). I eventually switched to a RF with the Mamiya 6, and the 50mm is a spectacular lens by any standard. I did return to the 6x7 format, but this time with the RZProII and 110mm lens, which is a formidable lens-camera combination that I'm very happy with. If you like the format and the system, I would recommend the RZ instead of the RB (if you can live with the extra electronics)...

Respectfully....

 

[hpulley]

I find the 90 KL is sharper than the C but my old pre-C 65 and 180 especially seem quite good.

 

[Wayne]

Thanks for the feedback. I can see now the necessity for multiple backs, even more than multiple lenses. And maybe the 90 is a better first choice for me, especially for closeups that I like to do. I may try for multiple backs and one lens at first, just to keep it cheap. While he practicaly gave me the 4x5, I think he thinks that these have retained their value much better than they have. I doubt he would take the $150 I was hoping to offer. I think $250 may be a more fair offer for a body, a back or 2, and a lens. Maybe I'll offer $200 and see if he'll throw in more stuff if I go up to $250. I can pick up more lenses and backs later. Maybe he'll throw in an extra lens for that price.

I think he has Pro-S backs but I'll make sure. He talked about getting rid of his older RB67 stuff that he got when he bought someone out 30 years ago, and it was clear he thought it was inferior.

I do hope to use it handheld. It will probably only be about 10% or less of its use, but I kind of like the waist level finder too.

 

[MattKing]

For handheld use, look as well for one of the Mamiya Grips with the built in left hand shutter release trigger. They are also compatible with the Mamiya C330.

Here is a photo of the multi-angle version, courtesy of Graham Patterson's excellent Mamiya TLR resource:

http://grahampatterson.home.comcast.net/~grahampatterson/grahamp/mfaq/jpg/lgrip.jpg

I use the non-multi-angle version on both my Mamiya C330 and my RB67.

As for prices, they vary greatly, depending on the source - see the attached Craigslist ad that ran recently in my area:

 

[Roger Cole]

The 645 backs have a couple of advantages:

1) 16 exposures per 120 roll instead of 10, and at least 15 of them all fit in the same Printfile page ; and
2) 6x4.5 slides, for those of us who don't have a 6x7 projector but do have a 6x4.5/6x6 projector.

They are large and heavy for 645 use, but not as large and heavy as taking two camera systems in order to obtain both formats.

Projecting the slides is a reason I hadn't thought of. That does make sense.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Redneck Review: Mamiya RB67

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Wayne]

Ha, this redneck doesnt even have high speed internet so he cant watch your redneck review.

 

[fmajor]

Ha!!!! Wayne, if you were a true Redneck you would've figured out a way to gain access to a high-speed satellite internet connection with an old trash-can lid - for free!!!

 

[bushpig]

Ha!!!! Wayne, if you were a true Redneck you would've figured out a way to gain access to a high-speed satellite internet connection with an old trash-can lid - for free!!!

Have I mentioned that I love this place?

 

[benjiboy]

Tell you about Mamiya RBs, well the only thing missing from the extensive range of accessory s is a Mamiya truss for the hernia you get carrying it about

 

[chassis]

I have an RB67 and like it alot. I shot it hand held with the left hand multi-angle grip, and it is a great setup. Yes it is heavy. The lens is sharp and operating the camera is straightforward.

I like the "ideal" 6x7 format. I rented a Hasselblad and put a few rolls through it, and definitely prefer 6x7 over 6x6.

Lots of accessories for the RB67. Prices are going down. They can, over time, develop film advance (film doesn't advance, causing double exposure) issues, which as far as I know are not just a matter of repairing the back.

I shot with mine for a year or so until I moved and put photography on hold for a few years. I have recently unearthed all my photo gear, and am setting up my darkroom so I will get the RB out and have some fun.

 

[Pumalite]

Best there is for what it does. Tight as a submarine. Never fails. I prefer it on a good tripod. But then; I'm getting on years.

 

[tomalophicon]

I have an RB67 and like it alot. I shot it hand held with the left hand multi-angle grip, and it is a great setup. Yes it is heavy. The lens is sharp and operating the camera is straightforward.

I like the "ideal" 6x7 format. I rented a Hasselblad and put a few rolls through it, and definitely prefer 6x7 over 6x6.

Lots of accessories for the RB67. Prices are going down. They can, over time, develop film advance (film doesn't advance, causing double exposure) issues, which as far as I know are not just a matter of repairing the back.

I shot with mine for a year or so until I moved and put photography on hold for a few years. I have recently unearthed all my photo gear, and am setting up my darkroom so I will get the RB out and have some fun.

What do you mean buy ideal?

 

[markbarendt]

What do you mean buy ideal?

Basically it fits 8x10 paper with almost no crop.

So ideal for 8x10's and similar ratio papers.

Ideal for composition? That's another question.

 

[lxdude]

"Ideal format" refers to a format which prints onto 8x10 without cropping (much).

 

[MattKing]

6x4.5 is also close to an "ideal" format (although not quite as close as 6x7).

 

[tomalophicon]

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.