Would like to join the 67 club. Pentax 6x7 or Mamiya RZ67?

[John Wiegerink]

The P67 prism is what mostly makes it heavy. Having a 100% size one would make it even worse in that respect. The deluxe chimney finder does provide 100%, plus brighter viewing and more critical focus, but not eye-level use or convenient vertical composition.

And if it had interchangeable backs, there would go all the "big brother to 35 mm" ergonomic handling the P67 is prized for. Every system involves certain compromises.

I have the deluxe chimney finder, but don't really use it much. As far as interchangeable backs? I have and use several model Zeiss Contaflex cameras and have several of the interchangeable back that work on it and the Zeiss Contarex cameras. Those backs don't increase the size and weight of the camera much at all. The only drawback to those backs is a leaky dark slide slot after they age. I'd suffer just a little extra size and weight just to have interchangeable backs on the Pentax 67, but we all know that's certainly wishful thinking.

 

[F4U]

6x6 is basically a 12 shot per roll 6x4.5 that you crop later. I dislike square photos, so thats how I treat it. It does have the advantage that you can shoot both landscape and portrait orientation 6x4.5 easily with a waist level finder.

Actually, truth be known, this is the best of al worlds. And I don't like square either. But as I posted earlier, a Rapid Omega with its basic 90mm lens is everything in one. When you get to a certain age where being a gearaholic has passed and you just need 1 good MF these are the best compromises. I pay very little regard to the actual camera any more. What's more important is how accurate is your shutter? Thst means more than anything. None of these older shutters is anywhere near it's factory calibration. Without that, the darkroom work is constant trial and error.

 

[beemermark]

I once (when much, much younger) had the Pentax 67. While a beast it is very hand hold able. I've played with a few of the Mamiya 67 cameras and in my opinion it's strictly a tripod studio camera. The Mamiya offers a greater range of accessories (think backs) while the Pentax is a Leica on steroids. So results are similar, use in the field is very different.

If you're printing negatives the 6x7 format is perfect. Scales up to 11x14 with no loss of negative image. I no longer have a dark room and much prefer the 6x6 format. It looks great printed and you can crop it anyway you like. The 645 format is great if your shooting horizontals, but verticals are a PIA.

 

[beemermark]

Koni~Omega Rapid sounds like you are chambering a Shell….

More like a 16 inch round on the USS Iowa -

 

[250swb]

Fuji GW670, 6x7 in a Texas Leica form, great for a tripod (and a Nikon 90 degree finder screws right in for convenience), and also great for hand holding. Out of everything mentioned so far it probably has the best lens.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Fuji RF's are way easier to handhold than P67. I have both a GW690ii and a GW690iii. And if necessary in dim light (and on tripod), I have a Nikon F accessory magnifier which fits the eyepiece thread of the Fuji to magnify the focus. Great lens, but really no better in real world functionality than what certain late P67 lenses will deliver; it's all pretty much film limited at this point in time, rather than optically limited.

My very sharpest 6X9 results are with a roll film back on my 4x5 in conjunction with Fuji A and Nikkor M view camera lenses. Even my superb 300 EDIF P67 tele doesn't quite equal the tiny Nikkor 300M. But for the bulky 300 P67 tele, I need to use the same tripod as I use for 8x10 work. I have gotten a few crisp shots with it at high shutter speeds cushioned by a jacket atop a car roof or fence rail, rifle-style.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you like the thrill of holding a bomb about to explode in your hand, and experience the explosion upon shutter release, go with P67 (otherwise great camera with great lenses).

If you care to experience the hard-to-believe super-soft release, go with RB67 (I assume RZ67 has it similar).

Ergonomics of P67 are only assumptions until you hold one, it's a beast like any other 6x7 SLR. And the way it shakes is an experience in its own right. Shaken-not-stirred applies.

RB67 is hardly a handheld option, even though it can be done, but a world apart when set on a tripod as 6x7 would ask for to start with.

The benefit of 6x7, outside of claiming 67 club membership, is not what it looks like on paper, unless very large prints are the final goal, and viewed from a wrong distance.

The downside is kit size and weight. It's not far from a LInhof Technika 6x9 where you get some movements where you need it, and still can handhold and shoot 6x9 with no more awkwardness than with RB67, maybe even less so. And of course you get the rotating back too.

For quick MF shooter I'd take 645 almost every time as it still is a much larger negative from 35, and difference in print leaves no doubts. P645 would run ahead of a Bronica, unless switching film types mid roll is a consideration and interchangeable backs are important (which is no option with P67 anyways).

Square is not for everyone, but 6x6 has its own big benefits.

I think the RB67 was designed with the studio pro in mind where it's on a tripod all the time and not really moved around outside. Of course, I use it mainly for landscape, so the kit is heavy.

 

[MattKing]

I think the RB67 was designed with the studio pro in mind where it's on a tripod all the time and not really moved around outside. Of course, I use it mainly for landscape, so the kit is heavy.

Kids these days - they need such pampering !
I used to enjoy using my RB67 hand held. IIRC, this was shot that way:

With the left hand trigger grip - the one that was also designed for my C330 - and a shorter than usual neck strap, it worked great!
A family friend was a long time portrait, studio and wedding photographer. I'll always remember him saying to me that he had changed to small cameras - an RB67 and a Koni-Omega. They meant he could do all his wedding formals on site, rather than having the wedding party and family come to the studio for the 8x10, and use the Koni-Omega in place of the Speed Graphic.
Some of his RB67 wedding shots were hand held, and some were on a tripod. All the Koni-Omega shots were hand held.

 

[F4U]

Actually the RB is quite usable hand held. I'm sure wedding photographers used them regularly. And a fine studio tripod camera also. The Pro S was a better design than the early ones. I question the accuracy of the shutters all these years later, as I do all old iris shutters. But assuming it's been sent to a shutter professional, The RB was and is a great camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kids these days - they need such pampering !
I used to enjoy using my RB67 hand held. IIRC, this was shot that way:
View attachment 405011
With the left hand trigger grip - the one that was also designed for my C330 - and a shorter than usual neck strap, it worked great!
A family friend was a long time portrait, studio and wedding photographer. I'll always remember him saying to me that he had changed to small cameras - an RB67 and a Koni-Omega. They meant he could do all his wedding formals on site, rather than having the wedding party and family come to the studio for the 8x10, and use the Koni-Omega in place of the Speed Graphic.
Some of his RB67 wedding shots were hand held, and some were on a tripod. All the Koni-Omega shots were hand held.

Nice shot Matt. Maybe my problem is I use Velvia 50, which is pretty slow. What speed was that film?

 

[MattKing]

Nice shot Matt. Maybe my problem is I use Velvia 50, which is pretty slow. What speed was that film?

T-Max 100, IIRC.
But it might have been T-Max 400. It is a 9+ year old shot, and I chose it because it is one of the relatively small number I've digitized. I didn't happen to record the film type with the digital file.