What makes an RB67 so special, anyway?
-
A
- Thread starter Ariston
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500ELX kit with CT80 lens
- Started by EgawaShiro
-
Free Kodak slide carousels
- Started by Mkaufman
-
Free Case of 22B Flashbulbs -- NE Ohio pickup
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
Hang in there, you'll get it!
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
The back should rotate.
Deleted member 88956
OP smacked himself already
RB ==> Rotating Back 
(waiting for Mr. Glass to show up and twist this into yet another reason one needs a Hasselblad.
(waiting for Mr. Glass to show up and twist this into yet another reason one needs a Hasselblad.
Yes - I've used my RB many times. Yet there I was. Holding it up sideways. Trying to frame with the reversed sideways view of a WLF.
It's my fault for neglecting a good camera for too long.
Ha- I’ve had to do that with my Bronica GS-1, rather difficult! I like the “RB” feature on my RZ.
I shoot my Mamiya RB67 sideways from time to time. Because I have only the waist level finder when the camera is placed very high on a tripod to clear a foreground obstruction I can't look down into it; not tall enough. So sideways it goes and the upside down image is friendly and familiar from all the view camera work I do.
I've been debating adding an RB67 to my kit for longer focal length wildlife shots, but so far the only examples I've found from my usual sources at the same time I had spare cash in the budget to buy one have been noted as missing the rotating back adapter.
Were a lot sold/often used without them, or are they an easy to break part that has been lost to general attrition faster than the camera bodies?
[Or possibly the same handful without them have been making the rounds at the few places I typically shop?]
I ended up with a back for one from a yard sale for cheap, so I figure collecting the rest of the camera and a few more backs belongs at the top of my list...
Were a lot sold/often used without them, or are they an easy to break part that has been lost to general attrition faster than the camera bodies?
[Or possibly the same handful without them have been making the rounds at the few places I typically shop?]
I ended up with a back for one from a yard sale for cheap, so I figure collecting the rest of the camera and a few more backs belongs at the top of my list...
The standard roll film backs won't attach directly to the body, you need the rotating back. The film back uses a graflok 23 latch, the body uses... something else. The rotating back acts like an adapter between the two.
Non-standard backs like the Polaroid backs don't use the rotating back, they instead use a "P adapter" that mates the back to the body (some Polaroid backs have the P adapter "built in"). So to use these backs the rotating back has to be removed from the body. Maybe that's why they get separated?
Deleted member 88956
Rotating back adapter would take a truck to run over it to break it. Not sure what money you are trying to spent on one, but you should be able to get full working set (body, finder, back, lens) for around $300 maybe even less if cosmetics are not important. But I would save up and wait for Pro SD body with SD back and KL lens as that is closer to 400 and higher. Bargains do come up, wanting something now usually costs more.
Piecing a kit together sometimes works, hardly a money saver though.
Yes, it feels rock solid. But how come OP have not noticed that you can rotate the back?
Deleted member 88956
He did .. afterwords.
Not knowing which focal lengths you're thinking of, but a 645 with a focal plane shutter or a Pentax 6x7 would be probably better options. There are more longer focal length lenses available and not having a leaf shutter means most are faster.
....I ended up with a back for one from a yard sale for cheap, so I figure collecting the rest of the camera and a few more backs belongs at the top of my list...[/QUOTE]
Are these cameras becoming scarce now?
Are these cameras becoming scarce now?
I knew you could rotate it. I’ve used the camera for years... I just had a brain lapse in the moment because I was rushing, and because I had been using my 500cm lately.
Possibly better options, and they've made a big part of my 'should I buy an RB67?' debate. All cameras are long series of compromises after all.
Options for "All mechanical, swap-able backs, reliable lenses beyond 250mm [longest made for my Mamiya TLRs], choice of WLF or standard viewfinder, and not paying too much" doesn't seem to come up with a very long list...
The probability is that ultimately what I end up with will be based on whatever wanders into a local shop at the same time I do, assuming it looks like a decent enough of a deal.
Dear chap; another reason to stay away from those hasslebalds! Go for the straight and narrow; SL66 or/and RZ67.
True... the Hasselblad isn't any easier to hold sideways for vertical shots. And it doesn't have a rotating back!
That is brilliant, I've run into the problem you've described several times
The other thing is a RB67 will take a 6x8 back which is very darn cool.
I have held my Rollei upside-down (and over my head) -- great way to photograph over a crowd.
Deleted member 88956
And these days you cannot even think, never mind mention, how it could be used at opposite pole position.
You mean hold it under my ass?
The Hasselblad, like any other square format camera can take a wider lens, for getting all into its 6x6cm or 4x4cm frames, or;
Step back far enough from the target to include it all in the same frame, or;
Shoot with the camera on a tripod that will allow a rise after the base frame, to include the apex framing, should the rise be within the range of a vertical movement, and a scanner can give you a digital negative stitched printed negative to print, or;
Rent, buy or borrow a Hasselblad Flexbody and use the tripod and camera features to keep the verticals, actually vertical.
The extra cm of the the OP camera, or any rectangular format that close to square does no mean the square format is some how disadvantaged or incapable of coping with the shot of a rectangular target.
N`est-ce pas?
As for holding the Hasselblad sideways for a shot, when no using a tripod, or even upside down, if you have had the camera any time, you'll find it no so difficult, at all, just remember to keep your lines vertical, and for overhead, turn your back to the target for easier viewing, with the camera after setting the focus from your normal frontal position.
IMO.
Step back far enough from the target to include it all in the same frame, or;
Shoot with the camera on a tripod that will allow a rise after the base frame, to include the apex framing, should the rise be within the range of a vertical movement, and a scanner can give you a digital negative stitched printed negative to print, or;
Rent, buy or borrow a Hasselblad Flexbody and use the tripod and camera features to keep the verticals, actually vertical.
The extra cm of the the OP camera, or any rectangular format that close to square does no mean the square format is some how disadvantaged or incapable of coping with the shot of a rectangular target.
N`est-ce pas?
As for holding the Hasselblad sideways for a shot, when no using a tripod, or even upside down, if you have had the camera any time, you'll find it no so difficult, at all, just remember to keep your lines vertical, and for overhead, turn your back to the target for easier viewing, with the camera after setting the focus from your normal frontal position.
IMO.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |