Almost Pulled the Trigger on a Mamiya RB67 Pro But...

I have wanted one of these since the 70s and have been actively searching for one in like new condition with a normal and wide angle lens until recently. The camera would be used exclusively for landscapes in b&w. I already have a b&w darkroom and two fine Canon SLRs. It would be great to have a larger negative to work with though. Years ago my brother had a Mamiya 645 and did excellent work with it. I was quite envious.

 

Now however I just discovered that if you store these lenses for a long period, they must have the shutter released or the spring will take a memory set. This will negatively affect the timing. When purchasing these lenses there seems to be no way to tell whether or not they were stored improperly no matter how nice they look outwardly.

 

The other issue is finding a period correct external meter that functions flawlessly. I don't relish the idea of carrying one of my SLRs or a digital camera to serve this purpose. My wife says she would like to see this sixty-nine year old body carry all that plus a tripod up a long steep trail here in the Rockies. So that is where my case rests.

Does the meter truly have to be "period correct"? Something recent, such as my Gossen Digisix, will do incident and reflected metering, uses readily available batteries, weighs about as much as an empty film canister, and would easily fit in your shirt pocket.

 

I have no useful insight on the RB67 spring problem -- but I do wonder if it's as obviously bad as some make it out to be. I would think a spring not pushed almost to its yield point shouldn't be that easily affected.

If you want to scratch the itch for an RB67, dismiss such concerns and just buy one. No one really understands why Mamiya went against every other leaf shutter medium format SLR mfr in recommending their lenses be released and stored uncocked. No other brand ever suggested this, they recommended the opposite (leave everything cocked). Even Hasselblad, which had the most trouble-prone leaf shutters on the planet, recommended leaving them cocked at all times so all pieces would remain ready to use and jam-proofed. Issues with lens leaf shutter speed accuracy and reliability stem more from lack of use and dried out sticky lube, not spring fatigue. And of any random 100 RB67 owners, 95 will have stored their lenses cocked anyway, so wondering how any specific lens was stored is kind of moot.

 

The Seiko 1/400th shutters in Mamiya RB lenses have proven remarkably durable compared to others over the years: much less likely to be found with problems than Hasselblad or Kowa 1/500th lens shutters, for example. Mid-period C and late period K/L Mamiya RB lenses are often fully functional in as-found condition, and remain that way a long time. The very earliest RB lenses with conical flared front barrels are perhaps riskier, optically and mechanically. The final K/L lenses are superb, but somewhat more difficult to repair than the flared-front or C series: Mamiya assumed they would almost never break down, so their inner barrels and shutter modules have some plastic fittings that resist removal for servicing.

 

Most Mamiya RB enthusiasts would recommend a Pro-S or Pro-SD body vs the first RB67 Professional, and C or K/L lenses over the earliest single-coated cone-barrel optics. Choose a nice kit within those parameters, and you should be very happy with it. Re exposure meters, something like the Sekonic Studio Deluxe or Gossen Luna Pro SBC would have been contemporaries of the RB67, along with many others made before or after. Meters haven't fundamentally changed since the '50s: a new one would work much the same as a vintage model.

Edited March 11, 2020 by orsetto

Mamiya made a metered prism, but it weighs a ton(over 2lbs cantilevered off the top of the camera) and I don't know how much I trust the meter. Even though I have one, when the batteries that were in it when I bought it ran down, I tossed them and never bothered to replace them. To its credit, though, at least it does use readily available silver SR-76(in principle alkalines can cause meter inaccuracy, but the whole thing is so fraught with potential error that I don't know if it's worth worrying too much about).

 

I agree that a modern-ish meter would be a wise investment. I'm partial to my Minoltas, which usually show up configured for incident but a wide-ish spot attachment is available. Anything non-selenium from Minolta, Gossen, or Sekonic should be good.

 

I make a habit of storing my RB lenses uncocked. At the same time, though, Seiko shutters have a good reputation for actually holding their speed and not being as cantankerous as Compurs and the like. I've had a half dozen different RB lenses all of unknown history, and I've never found one off by more than 1/3 stop or so at any speed. That's similar to my large format Seikos, which in principle should live an easier life as I doubt any LF photographer stores their shutters cocked.

Side note since you did specifically mention carrying:

 

I primarily shoot MF cameras in the field and not the studio, meaning that I carry them...a lot. I've hauled around some pretty heavy bits of kit. I'm actually currently in a mass sell-off of RB67 kit because it's sat unused far more than I'd like, and I've found my much more recently acquired Pentax 67 a much better fit for the way I use MF. I can tolerate the Pentax around my neck, and perhaps even a bag with 1 or 2 lenses over my shoulder, for a reasonable amount of time. I never made it very far with more than an RB67 body and lens around my neck, and that's using one of those big, cushy Optech straps. Everything about the RB is big and heavy, and it should tell you something that I've ditched mine in favor of a Pentax(which is not exactly regarded as being svelte). The in-lens shutters of RB lenses really drives their weight up, along with the fact that the rotating back requires a larger image circle than a non-rotating-back camera. Not only are the lenses heavier for a given focal length than a Pentax lens, but they are often 1/2-1 stop slower than an equivalent Pentax lens. As an example, the standard lens for the RB is a 90mm f/3.5, while on a Pentax you can choose between a 90mm f/2.8 and a 105mm f/2.4(the latter of which is legendary).

 

There are DEFINITELY situations where the RB is the better tool-don't get me wrong. It excels as a studio camera and for flash work. The bellows focusing gives it excellent close focusing with wide angle and normal lenses. If you prefer waist level viewing and need to shoot vertical, there's no substitute for the rotating back. Outside the exotic leaf shutter lenses, the sync speed on the Pentax is terrible-I think 1/30 or so, while the RB can sync at all speeds. The RB may well have the best damped mirror of any medium format SLR of any format. There's a lot to like about it, but this 32 year old guy never really took to the RB despite trying hard and building a good system, but took to the Pentax almost immediately.

For me, I really appreciate TTL metering. Once I start spinning a polarizer on top of a Y2, in front of an image with nice dynamic range my ability to get accurate exposures starts to fade. For that reason my SQA-i kit with the metered prism is the most comfortable for me to shoot with.

I've recently checked my RB67 lenses and found the shutter speeds very good even though I've left some of them cocked for 15 years in the closet when I wasn't using it. Here's my test results for my 50, 90, 180 and 360 lenses.

 

The weight is the bigger problem. I shoot from the trunk of my car or fairly close especially now that I'm 75. If you plan on hiking, I'd get something smaller. I always shoot with a tripod. You can;t shoot landscapes with an RB67 without a tripod and get a sharp picture. You have to stop down a lot for depth of field which means slower shutter speeds. That means a heavy tripod along with the head added to the weight of the camera and lenses.

 

But the pictures are very nice. The process is very contemplative and I feel I shoot better becasue of the slowed down procedure. Search: rb67 | Flickr

 

 

Mature photographer age + hiking = forget any medium format SLR system (unless you're in really good physical condition and have recent experience lugging a heavy kit up and down hills). As others have said, stopped down for landscapes you'll need a heavy tripod and heavy tripod head: added to the considerable weight of an RB67 and a couple of lenses/backs this is quite a burden to hike with. Maybe if you can reduce down to one lens and one film back...

 

Confusing things further, each SLR system has tradeoffs. The RB67 is largest and heaviest, yes, but is also pretty much the only medium format SLR with remotely usable slow speeds when handheld (and its that much better damped on a tripod as well). Hasselblads are notorious for "1/250th sec or don't even bother", Bronica and Contax can have random electronic snafus, Mamiya 645 can literally fall apart while you're in the middle of nowhere, the Pentax 67 has fast glass and flattest film transport, but its ginormous focal plane shutter can be a maddeningly unpredictable factor depending on interaction of exact shooting conditions and shutter speed (it can be bite you at any speed, fast or slow, until you figure out its personality).

 

In rectangular medium format, the default hiking choice is the Mamiya 7II rangefinder system. Lighter weight, with small incredibly-performing wide angle lenses, no flipping mirror, vibration-free accurate electronic leaf shutter in each lens, unreversed eye level viewing and TTL metering. Expensive, but probably the best hiking option for aging shoulders and hips.

 

If you can live with the square 6x6 format, a simple compact lightweight TLR like Rolleiflex, Yashicamat or Minolta Autocord would be the smallest medium-format hiking kit possible. Fixed lens, fixed back, all you carry is the TLR, some film, a meter, and a medium-duty tripod. Like the Mamiya rangefinder, TLR has the advantage of no flipping mirror and quiet shockless leaf shutter.

 

The RB67 is probably the most rewarding MF camera to use for landscape, as long as you can manage the hiking weight. The unique rotating back feature allows contemplative comfortable waist level viewing for both horizontal and vertical framing, and lets you avoid touching or adjusting the tripod once everything is locked in. The well-damped mirror/shutter action is amazing in a camera this size. But it makes for quite a large heavy pack.

Edited March 11, 2020 by orsetto

My mint condition Canon A-1 and AE-1 are starting to look a lot more desirable.

Just out of curiosity, is the motivation to have collectible stuff that's usable, or is it to buy gear to actually use?

 

I mention that because you've mentioned condition a couple of times.

 

I'm not going to fault anyone for having a collection of nice, clean, or even new in box/unused cameras. I have stuff that sits on the shelf as "never going to use" for that very reason. I have nice condition, but not perfect cameras, that I bought because they were interesting or filled out a set but I have no intention of using them. My near perfect Nikon EM is in that category(the EM/FG/FG20 series, but IMO the least useable of the series).

 

If your intention is to actually take the cameras out and use them, I'd encourage you to look for items that fall in the used but not abused category. Not only do you save a lot of money, but paradoxically stuff that shows signs of use has a good chance of having been used regularly(disuse can be the enemy of a lot of this stuff) and also likely to have been serviced at some point in the past.

I think a Hasselblad is a better bet. considering what you want to do. One camera (preferably a 503CW) , metered prism, two lenses (60 & 120), two backs and a carbon tripod will do the trick. Get the newest stuff you can find. Shoot 645 if you want, but make sure you have the Acute-Matt D checked/ split image screen (42217) that includes frame lines for 645.

Ben:

 

I own a pristine, award winning MGB roadster that is fifty-four years old. Next to it is parked a stunning forty-eight year old Alfa Romeo GTV 2000. Both are driven regularly (sometimes hard). What does that tell you? When I was little my parents were quite poor. I wore hand me downs and clothes purchased at second-hand stores. I hate buying anything that is not new for that reason. So if I can't buy new then I want whatever it is to be like new. I don't collect anything other than wonderful memories.

 

I like old things though. As a pilot I'd love to have my own plane but it would probably be something vintage like a WACO UPF-7 biplane. My favorite motorcycles are Japanese from the late '60s to the mid '70s. Nearly all automobiles after early 1974 have absolutely no soul or appeal to me. I find the term: "investment grade cars" deplorable and disgusting. There is a golden age for just about every thing worth having and photography is no exception.

BTW, a wonderful "Guide to the Mamiya RZ67" can be found on Emulsive.org.

Mint condition vintage film gear of any kind has gotten pretty thin on the ground in North America: film is at the peak of its latest wave of popularity. Medium format gear in nice cosmetic condition has become especially scarce as the turnover is not as frequent as it was five years ago- people are holding onto this stuff longer. So you may find it necessary to buy from Japanese eBay dealers, who seem to have utterly cornered the market on minty Mamiya systems (with thousands of eBay listings).

 

KEH was the go-to used USA camera dealer forever, with the widest variety of nice-condition examples, but they seem to have nothing in stock lately that hasn't been run over by a paving truck. That leaves local sources like Craigs List, or perhaps the classifieds on forums like this, and the Japanese dealers. This has its good and bad points: it prevents risky impulsive buying, but slows acquisition once you definitively know what you want.

arthur_g: Thanks for the link I think. Now I won't get a thing done today.

 

orsetto: I purchased my Canon A-1 in May 2018 on eBay from Japan. It was near perfect.

 

Ben: the Pentax 67 is tempting. I can attest to Pentax quality. I bought my first SLR, a Pentax Spotmatic with three lenses etc., while in Japan in 1969. Oh man do I miss that setup. It was stolen in 1980. I have several Pentax eyepieces for my telescope. They are head and shoulders better than anything else I have found for deep sky viewing.

A Quantum Calculight X or XP would probably be contemporary with the RB67, which was in production for a considerable time.

 

Quantum Calculight and Calcuflash meters are very compact and accurate. Just check the condition of the battery contacts. If corroded they can be temperamental and give intermittent connection.

I snagged a boxed a Pro S just over a decade ago when film gear prices had cratered. Mine looked like a pro's unused back-up--original packaging, manual, bagged strap and a desiccant pack for $125--gasp. Only needed new back and RB adapter seals--easy DIY fixes. Yes, it's big and not exactly svelte. But it's undeserving of its rep as an unwieldly monster. Its rotating back and MLU function allows shooting on a less-than-girder-like tripod. Never any issues with cocked/uncocked lenses(urban legend?). Sadly, as mentioned above, MF gear(outside Japan)is tough to find in acceptable shape. Keep looking for a Pro S/SD body. Get a WLF or plain prism finder--metered versions aren't worth it. I lug a Pro S+90mm on a tripod around summer cruise night car shows. Those 6x7 negs and transparency frames make it worthwhile. It's just a different gestalt.

 

Skip the retro fashion statement and get the newest handheld meter you can comfortably afford. Both Sekonic and Minolta were best sellers as the used market shows. Avoid relics like ancient Gossens and discount claims made about their immortality and abiding accuracy. Something like the Sekonic 5xx-7xx series meters with 1 degree spot and incident capabilities have you covered. Good luck!

Ben:

 

I own a pristine, award winning MGB roadster that is fifty-four years old. Next to it is parked a stunning forty-eight year old Alfa Romeo GTV 2000. Both are driven regularly (sometimes hard). What does that tell you? When I was little my parents were quite poor. I wore hand me downs and clothes purchased at second-hand stores. I hate buying anything that is not new for that reason. So if I can't buy new then I want whatever it is to be like new. I don't collect anything other than wonderful memories.

 

I like old things though. As a pilot I'd love to have my own plane but it would probably be something vintage like a WACO UPF-7 biplane. My favorite motorcycles are Japanese from the late '60s to the mid '70s. Nearly all automobiles after early 1974 have absolutely no soul or appeal to me. I find the term: "investment grade cars" deplorable and disgusting. There is a golden age for just about every thing worth having and photography is no exception.

 

Uh oh, an MGB and an Alfa GTV? Ben, did you hear that? Taking this off topic for a minute, I too have a GTV 2000 ('73) Its an original 31,000 mile car and I love it. Since they really are "60's cars" in disguise, I hear you about the fall off of cars with souls. Having said that, I see all sorts of young guys these days scooping up cars you and I might consider soul-less. It has a lot to do with what we grow up with I guess and the cars we lusted after as young adults. Its good to see the car hobby alive and well even if the changing of the guard is happening in some quarters. Good luck with your decision re: Medium Format.

I spent a relaxing evening this evening giving my 1970 MGB a bath, then took it out for a drive and shot some portraits of it in a favorite spot with my favorite F2(an F2SB) and the 105mm f/2.5.

 

I get it and liking to have nice older stuff. My B is probably about a 2-footer. It has a nice but probably ~15 year old respray in BRG(the factory paint was that same color, but it was resprayed in a slightly darker one that the paint store matched to a Jaguar Racing Green code) that has a few chips, and the impossible-to-find 1970-only bumpers really need to be rechromed. Still, though, I have a lot of fun driving it in nice weather. I'm hoping to arrange an engine pull in the next few weeks-I need to fix an oil leak in the timing cover seal, which I could do engine in, but thought that I'd take the chance to change the cam, throw a fresh set of rings and bearings in it, and most importantly drop in the overdrive I have sitting here that I'm itching to install :) .

 

In any case, best of luck with whatever you end up with.

 

Also, I agree with the above comment that a Hasselblad is worth a look. You give up a fair bit of film area vs. 6x7(since 6x6 ends up getting cropped to print on rectangular paper) but get a much smaller and more manageable camera in exchange.

FWIW I have an RB67 Pro S rig with three lenses and am soon to aquire another. It's a great big heavy beast but I am used to that having grown up with a motor driven pair of F2's in the news business. I've actually done a few weddings with the RB, all of it handheld and gotten good results. I'll find out later this year how much I like hiking around with it.

 

Rick H.

If you're attracted to the RB67, Hasselblad is not going to be a satisfactory alternative. They are two very different system philosophies with different end games. Having owned both simultaneously for several years, I can attest from personal experience that they're complementary: they cover similar ground, but each is more suited to different use cases and photographers. After a time I decided I mostly preferred 6x6 square medium format, so sold my RB67 kit to focus on my Hasselblad and Mamiya 6x6 SLR & TLR systems. This proved to be a huge mistake: I really miss the RB, but at current prices and limited availability haven't been able to re-acquire what I had before. My kit was a RB67 Pro-S with three backs, 65mm C lens, 140mm C Macro, all pristine. Cost me $545, sold it at a loss for $400 because RB gear littered the ground six years ago. Today if you can even find this RB kit in North America its selling for $1200.

 

The Hasselblad is great if you actually prefer and will shoot 6x6 square frames: size, weight, handling and lenses are about as good as you can get. But if your "eye" is rectangular its a waste of money. 'Blad (like Rollieflex TLR and Bronica SQ) is engineered for the square: shooting rectangular drops you to 645 format (half the size of 6x7), you lose some of the advantages of the Zeiss glass, and the camera handling is crap with a 645 back. Waist level is off the table: you need a 90° prism to do verticals, and the Hassy 90° prisms are disappointing (esp for eyeglass wearers). Hasselblad is also a clattering rattletrap of noise and vibration: its near useless handheld below 1/125th and even tripod use benefits from pre-firing the mirror (tedious). Head shots with the portrait lenses often require an annoying extension tube or Proxar closeup lens. Hasselblad lens shutters do not suffer sitting idly very well: you are far more likely to need expensive service on a sticky as-found 'blad lens than any other camera system.

 

RB67 is noticeably larger and heavier, but you get damn near twice the film area in rectangular format. The rotating back means you never have to give up the fantastic high-magnification WLF and chest-level ergonomics. Built-in bellows makes head shots and nature details easy-peasy. Most significantly, its luxuriously well-damped compared to any other medium format SLR: the mirror raise is so smooth you can pull off handheld at 1/30th with practice, and I never felt it necessary to use mirror lockup on a tripod. The lens shutters tend to age well and rarely need service (unlike Hasselblad).

 

Horses for courses: figure out which factors are most important before choosing a system. And always keep in mind that the second hand market turns on a dime: whats common today becomes scarce next year, and vice versa. Right now Hasselblad is more easily available in a variety of conditions than RB67, so if you're attracted to RB advantages, try that first. You can always try Hasselblad later if RB doesn't work out, but vice versa may be more difficult unless/until RB falls out of favor again.

 

Pentax 67 kinda splits the difference between Hasselblad and RB: you get the big 6x7 frame, handheld work with the small prism vs the rotating RB back is a wash if you prefer eyelevel shooting, but the helical lenses, focal plane shutter and mirror slap dump you back in Hasselblad territory. All three choices entail a compromise, deciding which compromise suits you best is the key to satisfaction.

Edited March 12, 2020 by orsetto

Diane Arbus' camera journey offers some insight to these types of discussions.

 

She started with a Nikon F with 50mm f/1.4, and enjoyed the quick spontanaiety of it. But she felt it lacking in terms of resolution, tonality and grain, and found herself almost exclusively shooting vertical, so looked to medium format (inevitably 6x6 square in the early '60s). The Nikon F was replaced by a Rolleiflex Rolleiwide: I've never understood how or why she ended up with the oddball Wide variant (which was uncommon even then), but she did, and it definitely was a factor in developing her best-known "in your face" distorted portrait style. After a time she felt constrained by the fixed 55mm Distagon wide POV, opted for a Mamiya C33 TLR with interchangeable 65, 80, 135 lenses, and was happy with that for awhile because it broke up her perspective to a degree.

 

A year before she died, she stumbled across the then-new Pentax 67 SLR and fell instantly in love with it: the only camera gear she ever wrote about to anyone effusively. She felt it was the best of both worlds: a large-format Nikon F (all the spontanaiety of the F but with a huge negative). She was entranced with the "35mm SLR on steroids" concept, and excited about a return to rectangular format. She only got to use it for a bit less than a year before she passed, but it marked a dramatic change in her style. P67 lack of flash sync options forced her to use more available light, eye level prism gave a marked change in perspective and how she interacted with people, landscape became her default orientation, and the P67 shutter shock at slower speeds caused her to experiment with incorporating the unavoidable blur.

 

You never know what will work for you until you try, and then try something else. Fortunately we live in the era of eBay and digitally-cratered medium format film gear prices: makes the journey a lot easier.

Edited March 12, 2020 by orsetto

My entire "focus" is on landscapes. I'm hopeless at portraits, cities, artificial light and stills. Living in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains offers endless outdoor opportunities and the desert Southwest is only eighty some miles away. My hero of heroes is Ansell Adams and I follow his dictums out the window. As an amateur I think I have done quite well and am very satisfied with my work. The 6x7cm format is the only one I would consider. That much I am sure of. It would mean getting a bigger enlarger, easel, paper, tanks and trays but that's okay. Doing my own processing is still magic and a labor of love. The next logical step will be to find folks that have the cameras we have discussed and try them out. There are a couple of MF fanatics locally so maybe I could work something out. My wife takes care of the digital images and she's a better photographer. If I want to get the best possible spot for good composition I need to follow her around like a shadow.

 

BTW. MGs and Alfas rule! I do own the only real soulful sports car currently in production. It's a dark blue 2018 Fiat 124 Spider. What? You never heard of it? Look it up.

to follow your hero you need a truck and an 8x10 at least^^

to follow your hero you need a truck and an 8x10 at least^^

 

Don't forget the glass plates and hand applied emulsions!