According to what I see on my computer, nobody has posted to this thread in over 5 years until today so I think they did let it go.
Why is the RZ so popular?
-
A
- Thread starter Prime
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 90mm f/4.5 Caltar II-N (= Rodenstock Grandagon-N) in Copal 1
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Nikon FM kit
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
According to what I see on my computer, nobody has posted to this thread in over 5 years until today so I think they did let it go.
Basically, they have everything you would expect from a pro camera, including many of the advantages of a large format system, in terms of system-building ability to suit a wide variety of tasks.
First of all, they are a fully modular SLR. Thus, they are incredibly versatile. They are a sensibly designed camera made as a total system, and have certain advantages over a Hassy system (while the Hassy also has several advantages of its own over the Mamiya, most notably smaller size, faster lenses, greater backwards compatibility, a more simple design, and arguably better build quality and reliability.).
Due to the "ideal" format, the image quality is "technically" higher than a Hassy at the same print size, due to the fact that the RB neg doesn't need to be blown up as much.
They are a bellows camera, and have the advantages thereof (just like the C-series TLRs), just like large format.
They don't need to be rotated to change between horizontal and vertical orientations, just like large format.
They use largely interchangeable components back over 30 years, just like large format.
They are easily accessorizable and customizable, just like large format.
They synch with electronic flash at all shutter speeds, just like large format.
...and they are cheap...especially now, just like large format.
BTW, an RZ is not necessary. An RB will be much cheaper and nearly as good, although older.
First of all, they are a fully modular SLR. Thus, they are incredibly versatile. They are a sensibly designed camera made as a total system, and have certain advantages over a Hassy system (while the Hassy also has several advantages of its own over the Mamiya, most notably smaller size, faster lenses, greater backwards compatibility, a more simple design, and arguably better build quality and reliability.).
Due to the "ideal" format, the image quality is "technically" higher than a Hassy at the same print size, due to the fact that the RB neg doesn't need to be blown up as much.
They are a bellows camera, and have the advantages thereof (just like the C-series TLRs), just like large format.
They don't need to be rotated to change between horizontal and vertical orientations, just like large format.
They use largely interchangeable components back over 30 years, just like large format.
They are easily accessorizable and customizable, just like large format.
They synch with electronic flash at all shutter speeds, just like large format.
...and they are cheap...especially now, just like large format.
BTW, an RZ is not necessary. An RB will be much cheaper and nearly as good, although older.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi 2F/2F: "Ideal" format is 6 x 7, Hassy is 6 x 6; not that different in image size to make much difference in quality. Also, the 6 x 6 contains more image than a 6 x 7. For a 6 x 7 camera to include all that is in a 6 x 6, it would need to be a 7 x 7. (Reference; "Picture Making With The Reflex" by H.S. Newcombe, page 24, "The Square Shape") Howard Tanger
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 268
- Format
- Medium Format
I bought a hasselblad 500c/m a few months back, so I can't say I'm overly experienced with it. However, after some pretty heavy use, I'm very very happy with it! The lenses are excellent, and the camera is superb. I had the following problems:
- Loaded the first roll of film backwards. Oops.
- Jammed the camera twice. Both were for the same reason; shooting with a cable release and the dark-slide in. The jam is easily fixed a flat head screw driver.
One jam was a major bummer tho. I was in the middle of a 30km hike through some very beautiful and mountainous terrain. As such I had to lug the camera, three lenses and tripod for another 15 odd km without the benefit of taking some nice pictures! Oh well, it was entirely my fault and, as I said, easily fixed if I had thought to bring a screw driver on the trip.
- Loaded the first roll of film backwards. Oops.
- Jammed the camera twice. Both were for the same reason; shooting with a cable release and the dark-slide in. The jam is easily fixed a flat head screw driver.
One jam was a major bummer tho. I was in the middle of a 30km hike through some very beautiful and mountainous terrain. As such I had to lug the camera, three lenses and tripod for another 15 odd km without the benefit of taking some nice pictures! Oh well, it was entirely my fault and, as I said, easily fixed if I had thought to bring a screw driver on the trip.
The "ideal" format is a circle. Whether it's an RB or a Hasse or something else, the best equipment is what serves your purpose not what someone else says about what you have. I just bought a used RB Pro S setup because I can use my Graphic backs with it and I wanted to shoot in a larger size than that of my 645 on roll film. I can use the one "22" roll film back when I feel the need for a square image, 6x6. All of these cameras are proven and professional it's just a preference.
Curt
Curt
It's only ideal if you print 8x10 or multiples of 8x10. Print 11x14 and neither is ideal.
If you want an 6x6 negative out of 6x7 use something sharp. Really it's hiding in there.
Horses for courses. My RZ with lens is heavier then my 8x10.
With the used cost today of cameras don't worry about finding the "perfect" camera. You can buy a bunch of less then perfect and use them for what they're best at.
If you want an 6x6 negative out of 6x7 use something sharp. Really it's hiding in there.
Horses for courses. My RZ with lens is heavier then my 8x10.
With the used cost today of cameras don't worry about finding the "perfect" camera. You can buy a bunch of less then perfect and use them for what they're best at.
I suspect kiku, that is about the dumbest argument I have heard yet. rb67 lens were not designed with the 7x7 format in mind. They were designed with 6x7 format in mind. Roll film doesn't come in 7 cm widths. You get 6 cm and you add 1 cm on the end. 36 cm squared vs. 42 cm squared. Improvement? Only if it fits your artistic vision.
I shoot both 6x6 and 6x7. When I feel like square, I bring out the C220. When I feel like shooting other than that, I bring out the rb67. Neither is "Ideal", both are what I feel represent the vision I wish to present on that day, with that subject.
Mamiya vs. Hassey... hell, go out and shoot. Price per pound, that's why I shoot Mamiya. You will never hear me put down someone who shoots Swedish. But don't tell me my rb67 is inferior to your N. European gear.
tim in san jose
I am not arguing that any one format is more ideal than another, in the general conversational use of the word ideal. "Ideal" format does not mean the format that is ideal...that will vary with the desire of the photographer. It is simply a shorthand term used by photographers to describe a film format/frame spacing that enlarges onto commonly available paper sizes (8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc.) with minimal cropping, thus allowing you to compose your shot almost to the T in camera and waste less of your image area when you enlarge.
My point was that IF you are shooting specifically to fill these stock paper sizes, then the Mamiya has "better" raw image quality than a Hassy. The larger the print, the more apparent this is. (At the same enlargement, the Hassy lenses are usually "better" than the Mamiya ones as far as raw image quality.) For example, A 6x7 negative is linearly enlarged approx. 5x to fill a piece of 11x14 paper, while a 6x6 negative is linearly enlarged approx. 6.25x to fill the paper. The larger you get, the greater the spread in amount of enlargement. At 16x20, the 6x7 frame is enlarged approx. 7x and he 6x6 frame is enlarged approx. 9x.
Raw image quality may not be as much of a concern as the character of the lenses. Personally, I think the Mamiya lenses have fine character...whatever that means anyhow. Others swear by the Zeiss Hassy glass.
I am also not trying to get into a debate between RBs and Hassys, but simply pointing out some considerations and comparisons/contrasts for each, so the OP might understand why the RB is such a popular camera, even when Hassys have such a great reputation. Both are incredible systems.
My point was that IF you are shooting specifically to fill these stock paper sizes, then the Mamiya has "better" raw image quality than a Hassy. The larger the print, the more apparent this is. (At the same enlargement, the Hassy lenses are usually "better" than the Mamiya ones as far as raw image quality.) For example, A 6x7 negative is linearly enlarged approx. 5x to fill a piece of 11x14 paper, while a 6x6 negative is linearly enlarged approx. 6.25x to fill the paper. The larger you get, the greater the spread in amount of enlargement. At 16x20, the 6x7 frame is enlarged approx. 7x and he 6x6 frame is enlarged approx. 9x.
Raw image quality may not be as much of a concern as the character of the lenses. Personally, I think the Mamiya lenses have fine character...whatever that means anyhow. Others swear by the Zeiss Hassy glass.
I am also not trying to get into a debate between RBs and Hassys, but simply pointing out some considerations and comparisons/contrasts for each, so the OP might understand why the RB is such a popular camera, even when Hassys have such a great reputation. Both are incredible systems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow a feud nearly as old as APUG! From the country that gave us the Hatfields and the McCoys (but that one is, I understand, settled).
Regards Ross (RB 67, couldn't afford a Hasselblad)
Regards Ross (RB 67, couldn't afford a Hasselblad)
Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
Oh, so the lens designers at Mamiya have found the way to create a lens that projects an oval image instead of a circular one? That would be probably the biggest discovery in optics since Newton....
Considering the 6x8 back I'm guessing the image circle is really 8x8.
Now mhv, this is going to take you a long time to puzzle out but a lens does not have to have an image circle out to the edge of the film. It needs an image circle out to the corner of the film. An image circle that goes to the corner of a 7x7 square is larger than the image circle of a 6x7 image. Hence, lens are designed to go to corners, not edges.
Now sit down in a corner with a calculator and puzzle that one with Pythagoras for awhile.
tim in san jose
Except the RZ back rotates.
Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
Exactly.
Why do the Hasselbalds "jam" so much, I hear that every once and a while? What is it that actually jams on the camera and why hasn't it been fixed?
Rollei Romance, Hassy Legacy, Mamiya ... well, yeah, the nerdy asian kid!
On the scale of romantic to scientific said:
Curt, the common jam occurs if you don't follow the proper sequence for changing lenses. Basically, you just want to make sure that the film is completely advanced before trying to change lenses. Better yet, just advance the film after each shot as a matter of routine, period, and you will be fine. If you forget and the camera jams, you can remove the magazine and clear the jam with a screwdriver. I'm sure you can get detailed instructions by doing an Internet search. Same with other cameras, as far as locking if you don't meet certain conditions before doing certain operations, except the lens doesn't get stuck on like when it happens like with a Hassy. For example, C-series TLRs are often confusing at first because of all the conditions that will keep you from shooting if you don't meet them.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7
- Format
- 35mm
I told you it would take a long time for you to figure it out. And now you have help. *L*
Whether the rectangle is horizontal or vertical, the distance from the middle of the image is the same. The lens designed for a 6x7 image has a smaller illuminated circle than one designed for a 7x7 image. Now both of you go back to your corners and play with Pythagoras. You are both now measuring to the edge of the film, not to the corner.
tim in san jose
Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
Oh blimey.... Just did the maths.
Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
And there's just one little thing we ALL forgot...
The RB/RZ67 can be fitted with a 6x8 back.
The RB/RZ67 can be fitted with a 6x8 back.
papagene
Membership Council
Since at the present time we can't attach file to a response...
If you do a simple diagram on graph paper you will see that a 6x6 square needs a minimum of a 8.5 cm diameter circle to cover all edges. Where as a 6x7 horizontal overlayed on a 6x7 vertical will need at least a 9 cm diameter circle. Basic 10th grade geometry and it ain't got nuthin to do with Pythagoras.
Sorry I can't attach the diagram.
gene
If you do a simple diagram on graph paper you will see that a 6x6 square needs a minimum of a 8.5 cm diameter circle to cover all edges. Where as a 6x7 horizontal overlayed on a 6x7 vertical will need at least a 9 cm diameter circle. Basic 10th grade geometry and it ain't got nuthin to do with Pythagoras.
Sorry I can't attach the diagram.
gene
papa, it's only a theoretical point since no one designs a lens for 7x7 coverage. I made the point so people realize what the image circle needs to cover... corners, not edges. A 7x7 format requires ~9.85 cm diameter circle.
tim
| 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:  |