What parts do I need for the RZ to shoot basic portraits?

<p>I have a DSLR but am looking to supplement it with a film camera system under $500. I love the look of the portraits these cameras produce. I have never used film before and don't know what I should know about it...I am assuming the way it works is I put in a roll (ASA400 for continuous lighting in studio?), expose and take my shots, then get it developed...and then scan the prints? I am not really sure how scanning negatives work.<br>

<br /> Anyways, when looking at the RZ on KEH.com, it says there are accessories like digital backs, prisms, etc. I am wondering what exactly I need to buy besides the body and lens to make this a functional portrait camera. Any recommendations, warnings, articles, etc. are really appreciated. Thanks!!!</p>

<p>My suggestion is to get a basic rz with a 80mm lens and just go shoot (with cheap film). Let someone else develop and scan. Film costs money, but there are ways to make it economical. Once you have the hang of getting the shots you like, start getting deeper into the film world.</p>

<p>I see you also posted basically a similar question concerning a Canon A-1. Unless you plan to get both 35mm and a medium format camera, you should decide which you want to use....just starting in film and getting both isn't a very good idea, as there is a fair amount to learn, It is usually better to be a master of one than a mediocre jack of all.</p>

<p>Stephen has a valid point.</p>

<p>There is no shortage of film cameras. You have no blanket for making exposure considerings the cpu can give you in a digital camera. Film does promote you following rules closely. That said, perhaps finding someone who shoots film may be initially what you need.</p>

<p>The earmark of a film shooter is not the rapid sound of the shutter. I can walk around all day and only shoot 10 or so frames.</p>

<p>What you need is :<br>

RZ body - either Pro 1 or Pro II will do, I'd say condition is more important<br>

RZ back - 120 film has many more choice available - black and white and transparency - a 120 back.<br>

Finder - waist level finder is most basic, often comes with a used body, and can work fine for portraits<br>

Lens - RZ lens, go by focal length you prefer, roughly equivalent focal length is 2x to 35mm, i.e. the 180mm RZ lens is kind of like a 90mm on 35mm full frame although the aspect ratio is different. The 180 regular lens is pretty cheap in general, the 110 is very nice, but more like a 55mm lens.</p>

<p>Some way to meter the exposure - a DSLR set to the same film speed can be used.</p>

<p>Lighting - whatever you want - </p>

<p>@peter: I will go with a basic rz, long lens and cheap film. And yeah I can have someone else develop/scan. I plan to learn how it's done properly since I have some time to right now, thanks for the help!<br /> @stephen: I do not plan to get both, just the one best choice for me as I shoot studio portraits (my 5d mark iii is my main camera right now). I am trying to weigh the pros and cons of each.<br /> <br />@bob: so the back holds the rolls, do you recommend digital/non-digital? and yes I plan to use my DSLR to help me while I learn. thanks for the help on breaking down the system!!!</p>

You need a lens, a film back, film, some light, and having a tripod isn't a bad idea either. That's all. Have fun!

The earmark of a film shooter is also not the absence of the rapid sound of the shutter. You should take as many pictures in as rapid a sequence as you need.<br>The mark of a good photographer, no matter what type of capture, is that all of those shutter clicks, whether few or many per day, result in something good.

<p>I back the above- RZ, 120 back, 180W-N can all be e-bayed in good order for around your available cash. Later consider a winder, spare back and perhaps a Beattie intenscreen to gain brightness if using flash with modeling lights. As for a digital back- unless you have a really deep pocket keep your SLR! </p>

"The mark of a good photographer, no matter what type of capture, is that all of those shutter clicks, whether few or many

per day, result in something good."

 

I guess we disagree as I have always thought the Mark of a good photographer was that when review his work, he could

separate out the good ones from the not-so-good ones, and then do the hard work of winnowing theses down to the few

few that actually are, in the end, the truly good ones.

<p>There's a difference between between being a good photographer and being a good editor. I have known a number of people whose work was highly successful when well-curated rather than presented by the photographer. </p>

The editing should of course begin (long) before the camera is even touched. Noone will produce only 'keepers'. The mark is how close the 'non-keepers' are to the 'keepers'. Or how much editing work is left after the camera is put down again.<br>A photographer is someone who knows what he or she wants to show, and how to use the available tools to get that. The same for any 'job', not just photography. Competency.<br>Someone who uses tools and has to sift through what that resulted in afterwards to find whether there is something good in there may find there is, or not. But competent such a person is not.

<blockquote>

<p>But competent such a person is not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You seem to be channelling Yoda today, Q.G.!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a film camera system under $500.<br>

so the back holds the rolls, do you recommend digital/non-digital?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mood, "system under $500" and "digital back" are totally incompatible notions. You'd need to add another zero to surpass what you can already get from your 5d mark iii.</p>

<p>So for now, just embrace that big 6x7cm film format!</p>

 

<p>Difficult to believe that there are photographers out there who have never used film, but here we are. I took a portraiture class a few years ago and none of the other students had even seen a roll of 120 film. Still, it seems to me that using film (B&W) is still cheaper than digital if you include the cost of a high-end scan. RZs are a great place to start. </p>

<p>I just purchased an RB67 rig from KEH, body, back, L grip, waist level finder and 127, 180 and 150SF lenses for a total of $330. The RZ will be a bit higher but it comes with a warranty that KEH stands behind. You dont' get that from the auction site. I like this line of cameras and this format especially using it for portraits. As for lighting that is something with a lot of answers both difficult and some simple ones. As for film, none if it is really cheap, Tri X is about $4.50-ish from B&H which gives you 10 exposures. Consider some of the other options and experiment a little. The RB/RZ with a 180 is a favorite portrait rig for me and has been for a long time. Even better in B&W. Give some thought to processing your own. It requires a little practice but not much in the way of equipment and chemistry.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>The RZ is a beast but I still suggest to choose the RZ (or another equal medium format camera) because I doubt you will be satisfied with the image quality of 35mm film (suggested Canon A). 120mm film is a lot more comparable to the 'digital' image quality of a Canon 5D. With 35mm film I get decent 8x10 prints and in a pinch a bit bigger but 120 film from a RZ is a different story.<br>

Like people have said what is required as a start: RZ Pro (I or II) body, 120 film back, waist level finder and appropriate lens (RZ 180mm or 250mm). What I would like to add is a light meter and tripod. A light meter is required for exposing film beacuse the waist level finder has no built-in light meter like the metering prism.For ambient light you can use almost any meter but for flash you need an ambient/flash meter.<br>

The RZ is reliable and the only problems I have had with it is some light leaks in the film back due to degraded foam seals, that I eventually have replaced myself.</p>

<p>Get the <strong>110mm 2.8 lens</strong>. One of the best portrait lenses ever.</p>