Where did all the RB67s go?

[Ernst-Jan]

Assuming the following is in good shape and operational, what would a good ballpark price range be for this set?

Mamiya RB67 Pro S body
Chimney Finder
Waist Level Finder
120 film back
Polaroid back
macro extension tubes
140mm Macro f4.5 Mamiya- Sekor C
90mm f3.8 Mamiya- Sekor C
75 f4.5 SMC Takumar 6x7
65mm f4.5 Mamiya- Sekor C
50mm f4.5 Mamiya- Sekor C

I don't know why there's a SMC Takumar 6x7 lens in the set...

I don't know what a Takumar 75 is worth, I would sell that seperate anyway.
Assuming all working, I would say around €1200?
I paid €1100 for Pro S body, 2x 120 back, 1x Pro S back, 50 sekor C, 65 Sekor C, 90 f/3.8 Sekor, Polaroid back, waist level finder.
Lens hoods, filter holder, a bunch of wratten filters, double shutter release cable, extension tubes, original strap, Gossen light metre.

 

[radiant]

CLA'd one here https://kamerastore.com/product/mamiya-rb67-pro-sd-120-pro-sd-6x7-film-back-127mm-f3-5-l-k-l-2/

.. and here: https://kamerastore.com/product/mamiya-rb67-pro-s-120-pro-s-6x7-film-back-127mm-f3-8-sekor-c-2/

 

[Ernst-Jan]

CLA'd one here https://kamerastore.com/product/mamiya-rb67-pro-sd-120-pro-sd-6x7-film-back-127mm-f3-5-l-k-l-2/

.. and here: https://kamerastore.com/product/mamiya-rb67-pro-s-120-pro-s-6x7-film-back-127mm-f3-8-sekor-c-2/

That's quite expensive...
I just sent my Pro S, 3 backs and 3 lenses for a CLA and had to pay €250 for it. Okay, a bit profit, risk for warranty, but still far below €1699 and have 2 extra lenses, 2 backs.

 

[radiant]

That's quite expensive...
I just sent my Pro S, 3 backs and 3 lenses for a CLA and had to pay €250 for it. Okay, a bit profit, risk for warranty, but still far below €1699 and have 2 extra lenses, 2 backs.

Those will sell out for sure.

Original poster asked where did RB67 go, I pointed out two that are serviced and you can buy now through DHL right away from a good reputation seller. So it was answer to question.

Sure, buy a "mint++++" (small fungus, small haze) from ebay https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=rb67

 

[alanrockwood]

Two bodies and a bunch of lenses are living in my photo closet.

Same here.

 

[Kyle M.]

I don't know where they all went but the prices are going up, up, up! I bought my first RB67 Pro S with a 90mm C lens and 120 Pro SD back in 2013 for $310. I've seen just the 90mm selling for $350 lately. I also had an RZ67 Pro with the 110/2.8 and a 120 back that I bought for $325 in 2015, I've seen that lens alone sell for $650! The other was a RZ67 Pro II with 110/2.8 and 120 back, I paid $800 for the kit in 2017 or 2018 and sold it for $1100 a year later. I've recently seen them selling for just under $2,000! I hope the prices come back down, out of all of them I'd really like to have another RB67 with the 90mm and I prefer the Pro SD backs due to the lack of foam seals, I just can't justify paying over about $500 for one. Seems eBay seller are getting up to $800 for ProS and ProSD kits.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you're willing to wait a bit to buy by the piece, you can still get decent deals. I paid under $500 to buy in, Pro S body, two Pro backs (6x7 and 6x4.5 on 120), and 90mm f/3.9 Sekor C, with waist level finder. Both backs have slight light leaks at the shell hinge, but a strip of electrical tape makes them good. That set alone is a good, serious camera (and that was less than a year ago).

Since then, I've bought a 250mm f/4.5, 2x teleconverter, metered chimney and unmetered prism, 50mm (f/4?), Graflex 22 (for those times when square is the right format), and just picked up a #2 (82mm) macro tube for a song. I think I've still got less than a grand into the whole setup, and I've been acquiring pieces for less than a year -- and all from eBay except the macro tube. I'm happy with every piece except possibly the teleconverter (those are always questionable, but it's a lot lighter than two more lenses). Next I'll probably get either a 127mm or 140 macro.

 

[xya]

people have realized that these are mechanical cameras, no electronics failing. so the prices went up a little bit, but still they are good value. and since there are instax square backs for them, they are more attractive than ever. instax is instant fun. got one http://www.instantphoto.eu/other/coyote_instax_square.htm

 

[Donald Qualls]

I thought the Coyote Instax backs had come and gone. Even if they're still available, they were a little on the steep side...

 

[Ernst-Jan]

people have realized that these are mechanical cameras, no electronics failing. so the prices went up a little bit, but still they are good value. and since there are instax square backs for them, they are more attractive than ever. instax is instant fun. got one http://www.instantphoto.eu/other/coyote_instax_square.htm

That pictures are not very sharp to be honest...I never used FP100c, so I don't know if you can expect sharp pictures with instant photography?

 

[Kyle M.]

That pictures are not very sharp to be honest...I never used FP100c, so I don't know if you can expect sharp pictures with instant photography?

The pack cameras with glass lenses are amazingly sharp. The plastic ones aren’t bad. Also I’ve seen some incredibly sharp shots from SX-70’s.

 

[grat]

Usually Instax implies cheap lenses. With the upcoming 4x5 back for instax wide, I've seen some pretty sharp images (I don't have one-- yet).

 

[xya]

That pictures are not very sharp to be honest...I never used FP100c, so I don't know if you can expect sharp pictures with instant photography?

if you hold the pictures in your hand, they are pretty sharp. think of the size, instax square is only 62x62mm, so there are limits of resolution. FP100c was 95x73mm, that's nearly twice the size. even polaroid sx70/600 is about 60% bigger. just scan a nice old 60x60mm photo from an old family album. it looks sharp in your hand, scanned and on your screen you will see the same limits.

FP100c is gone and the new polaroid SX70/600 has not reached the quality of the old film (yet?) the only bigger instant format availble is intax wide, 99x62mm. there are some backs and cameras on my instant website for that.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

if you hold the pictures in your hand, they are pretty sharp. think of the size, instax square is only 62x62mm, so there are limits of resolution. FP100c was 95x73mm, that's nearly twice the size. even polaroid sx70/600 is about 60% bigger. just scan a nice old 60x60mm photo from an old family album. it looks sharp in your hand, scanned and on your screen you will see the same limits.

FP100c is gone and the new polaroid SX70/600 has not reached the quality of the old film (yet?) the only bigger instant format availble is intax wide, 99x62mm. there are some backs and cameras on my instant website for that.

Aha, the scans in your link looked out of focus/blurry. That has in my view nothing to do with the size of the "film".
I thinks in some circumstances, (for example this picture http://www.instantphoto.eu/jpgother/fisq_08.11.2019_2_9.jpg ) a Fuji instax camera woudn't perform worse.
I think the Coyote back is not cheap. If the quality is lower than expected I won't shoot a lot, after some shots it will end up in the cabinet catching dust.
Then I would prefer just to buy some of the left over FP100c for the money I spent on the Coyote back

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I let go of my RB kit 2 years ago, now kind of missing it, and looking around currently see that it is almost impossible to find one. Mine was only $200 from CameraWest (a great store, but not exactly the bargain hut) a few years ago. Where the hey did they all go? Did some blogger do a popular post that suddenly made RBs the must-have camera???

They were needed as boat anchors.

 

[Neil Grant]

..Since then, I've bought a 250mm f/4.5, 2x teleconverter, metered chimney and unmetered prism, 50mm (f/4?), Graflex 22 (for those times when square is the right format), and just picked up a #2 (82mm) macro tube for a song. I think I've still got less than a grand into the whole setup, and I've been acquiring pieces for less than a year -- and all from eBay except the macro tube. I'm happy with every piece except possibly the teleconverter (those are always questionable, but it's a lot lighter than two more lenses). Next I'll probably get either a 127mm or 140 macro.[/QUOTE]
i think you'll find the no1 tube (45mm) even more useful than the 'big one' you already have.

 

[Neil Grant]

They were needed as boat anchors.

"you're going to need a bigger boat"

 

[Ernst-Jan]

i think you'll find the no1 tube (45mm) even more useful than the 'big one' you already have.

Is it "true" that the no1 tube is for the 90mm and the no2 for 127mm? I thought I read that somewhere.
I bought my kit from the son of a retired pro photographer, it has 50-65 and 90mm. Hence the no.2 ring wouldn't make any sense?

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I finally sold my rather complete RB kit last year, with multiple accessories and seven lenses. I have a medium format view camera kit that I use; the RB rarely, if ever, went out the door. Plus, I have a Mamiya Press camera outfit. The press and VC cameras cover all my medium format needs.

The RB67 is a great system, though. So, it's not surprising that demand has increased.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I finally sold my rather complete RB kit last year, with multiple accessories and seven lenses. I have a medium format view camera kit that I use; the RB rarely, if ever, went out the door. Plus, I have a Mamiya Press camera outfit. The press and VC cameras cover all my medium format needs.

The RB67 is a great system, though. So, it's not surprising that demand has increased.

Would did you get for the kit if I can ask. I've got a complete kit with 4 lenses.

 

[Neil Grant]

Is it "true" that the no1 tube is for the 90mm and the no2 for 127mm? I thought I read that somewhere.
I bought my kit from the son of a retired pro photographer, it has 50-65 and 90mm. Hence the no.2 ring wouldn't make any sense?

..the No2 tube would reduce the min focus excessivley with the lenses you mention. 90mm lens/tube 1, and 127mm lens/tube2 both get to life size (with bellows extension) - implying a degree of mutuality.
Of course it's possible to use much longer lenses than 127mm on tube 2, at the risk of straining the bellows focusing mechanism.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The main limitation of the 90mm on a #2 (82mm) tube would be that you're limited to a minimum "almost life size" magnification. That is, 82mm extension with a 90mm lens is unavoidably about 90% life size on the film -- and with bellows you can go well beyond that. I wouldn't think it's genuinely a problem, it's just a limitation; if you want to shoot at, say, 50% size on the film, you can't do it with the #2 tube behind a 90mm lens.

That said, when shooting on 6x7, you'll be enlarging much less between negative and print than you would with 35mm, so a larger minimum size on the film is less of a limitation than it would be on the 24x36mm frame.

 

[Kyle M.]

Is it "true" that the no1 tube is for the 90mm and the no2 for 127mm? I thought I read that somewhere.
I bought my kit from the son of a retired pro photographer, it has 50-65 and 90mm. Hence the no.2 ring wouldn't make any sense?

The instruction manual should give you all the magnification ratios with the proper extension tube and lens combos. I used tube #1 and #2 combined with the 90mm on my RB multiple times. I believe the 50mm alone will get you nearly 1:1 and minimum focus is about an inch. The 90mm with both tubes is around 2:1 I believe? The 37mm fisheye at minimum focus let’s you touch the subject with the front element but I don’t know the magnification factor anymore.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Thanks for the explanation guys.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I let go of my RB kit 2 years ago, now kind of missing it, and looking around currently see that it is almost impossible to find one. Mine was only $200 from CameraWest (a great store, but not exactly the bargain hut) a few years ago. Where the hey did they all go? Did some blogger do a popular post that suddenly made RBs the must-have camera???

Someone is selling one in Houston.
https://houston.craigslist.org/pho/d/houston-mint-mamiya-rb67-pros-sekor/7265270783.html