Hiking with a Mamiya RB67

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>I was hoping that you might be able to help me with a bit of a puzzle I am currently working through in order to decide which MF camera to buy. I've done a fair bit of reading, looked at a bunch of forums etc... but can't quite find the information that I need. What I really need is some first-hand accounts.<br>

<em>Has anybody been hiking, hitch-hiking, or cycle touring with a Mamiya RB67??</em><br>

I'm looking for a medium format camera for two reasons: i. that it permits large prints to be made, and ii. I really want to compose using a waist-level finder – I actively want an experience which is removed from that of using an SLR (I currently use a Minolta x700, which I will continue to use alongside whatever MF camera I pick up), so no speed-grips and no AE prisms. I want to use equipment that will facilitate a more reflective style of photography – hence why I'm not looking to buy a DSLR or an MF rangefinder (and I know that the Mamiya 7 and Pentax 67 are supposed to be good for the 'adventure' photographer).<br>

On top of this I would also like to have a go at composing photographs in a 6x7 frame because it seems to me to be a slightly nicer ratio than the 35mm or 6x4.5 ratio – just a little squarer (whilst not the proper square of the 6x6 frame). But the problem is that I mainly want the camera to take hitch-hiking, walking, and cycle touring, and 6x7 cameras are a bit on the big and heavy side... I know that there is the Bronica GS-1, but there aren't a lot of parts and lenses going around for them, and so things tend to be a little more expensive, which is putting me off (they're also not that easy to get ahold of... I can only find a complete set up on ebay from Japan).<br>

All of these considerations are leading me to the Mamiya RB67 (money constraints mean that I can't afford an RZ67, and I also like the look of how convoluted the process of using the RB67 is – two levers, bellows focus, floating optics, etc...)... but everywhere I read about it I keep hearing people talking about what a lump it is. Hence my question... has anybody taken one walking (and I really mean one week to one month+ wild-camping trips), or has anyone taken one on a cycle tour for a few weeks? And was that experience good or bad.<br>

And if everyone thinks that it's a bad idea... then what about the Bronica ETRsi (which seems like the obvious choice from the 6x4.5 options)? Have people enjoyed using one for landscape photography? (By the way the kind of landscape photography I am inclined towards is more Thomas Joshua Cooper, or Thomas Struth – who I would argue is a landscape photographer – than Ansel Adams... though I'm not sure that has much bearing on what equipment – bar lenses – is best).<br>

I should probably also add that I'm a healthy 24 year old man, if that alters the advice which might be given about carrying medium format cameras for extended periods.<br>

And perhaps somebody has both an RB67 and an ETRsi, and could post a photo of them holding both side-by-side? That would be very welcome, to see both in comparison to a human body.</p>

<p>Hopefully this is a new question, and people will have fun thinking about it for a bit – and some people better informed than myself will be able to help me make a decision.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Robert.</p>

This all revolves about comfort, does it not? Remember that people used to, and still do, carry much larger and heavier cameras around to capture what they want without allowing what they return home with to be compromised by the demands of comfort.<br>Sure, it's not nice to be hauling great weights. But the end result will outlast the soon forgotten discomfort. So the question is what we would rather do: endure the discomfort of having to haul 30 kg through the wilderness and return with something we will enjoy for the rest of or lives? Or carry less (in a number of ways) and suffer the discomfort on knowing that what we came back with could have been a bit better, if only..., every time we look at it?<br>;-)

<p>Time ago, three guys used a medium format SLR camera in an extremely long trip, probably the longest men has ever made, to the moon. Every gram counted, I guess.</p>

<p>So using any medium format camera, or even large, for such a small trip in comparison, is a trifle.</p>

<p>Another topic is if it makes sense or not. Personally, I took my RZ, from time to time, to a local park, usually a few hours walk to have a good negative, usually an "enviromental portrait" of my wife, kids or friends. Also, from time to time, I can take a large format camera, to shoot something I wanted printed really large or with endless detail. But I never take this cameras to take snapshots here and there, thought.</p>

<p>For long time hiking (I think never in my life more than ten days, that is, in a sailboat or to the Matterhorn), I like to take a Leica or a Nikon.<br /> If you think you need a RB to achieve your goal, it`s ok, just go ahead.</p>

<p>I have several friends who purchased an RB67 only to watch it collect dust inside a closet. The camera is a beast and is more suited for studio work that hiking. Some say it's the next best thing to a Large Format Camera, but even then, the RB67 is heavier than a lot of LF cameras.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong if that is what you want to do then do it. There was one famous nature photographer who swears by this camera and he lugged it around into some of the most exotic corners of the world, I forget his name. However if you don't have that type of motivation, or "strong back" then I would look for something a little lighter. Maybe a Mamiya 6 or 7. They are expensive but manageable when it comes to hiking. </p>

Here (see link below) is an illustration of what i mean. The BBC brought us amazing and beautiful images of bears in Alaska. They wouldn't have been able to had to decided to bring a GoPro because it is lighter. ;-)<br><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p017gh5m">Link</a>. Browse through the gallery to see some of the schlepping involved, and remember: no roads or other such conveniences.

<p>I own an RB67. And while I love it, and use it constantly in the studio, I'm not sure I'd be so enamoured if I had to go lugging the thing around with me on a long hike. It is *really* heavy, especially if you're chained to it for a long time whilst you're trying to get somewhere.</p>

<p>The camera I'd take is a Hasselblad--which I also own. It's light enough that I'd consider it as a street or travel camera (only just on the latter), and the lenses are superb, obviously. You could sort of think of it as a 6x4.5, without the disadvantage of having to turn the camera to an often awkward position to change from landscape to portrait orientation--simply compose with the idea of cropping to fit whichever orientation you prefer…plus you've still got the whole square if your composition suits that better.</p>

<p>I've hiked about with the 'Blad and an 80mm lens hanging from my neck ready to shoot, or in a compact camera bag. That didn't bother me at all. I'm pretty certain that if I tried that with the RB, I'd be cursing my foolishness before terribly long. And I'm not some weakling--I may not be the henchest guy in the world, but I am a former college basketball player and track and field competitor who's done my share of weight training.</p>

<p>So, yeah, 'Blad (or Bronica, maybe, if you can't afford say a 500cm and an 80mm lens--they're quite good, too, from what I've seen). Or maybe even a TLR--Rolleiflexes are very nice, and a Mamiya TLR would let you take a body and multiple lenses for less than the weight of an RB67 and one lens, and they're pretty cheap, too.</p>

<p>In my experience, photography trips are uncompatable with sport or recreational trips. So to mix heavy photographical work with a climb, bike route or so could be a real pain for you and your friends.<br /> Sadly, many bike routes have beautiful spots, but not all trails are suitable to carry a camera into a saddlebag... better to enjoy the road, and to come back later to take the shot.<br /> This one below is an extremely hard path I love, only experts can cross it without putting a feet on the ground. I wanted it big with huge detail, so I took my field 4x5" camera and walked for hours to reach the point. I have several interpretations of this image, I found this scan anywhere into my computer:</p><div></div>

<p>The RB67 is too heavy. Go with a Mamiya 6 or something like that.</p>

<p>Well, the older I get (almost 63 now) the more I follow my adage that if one can't drive to the location it is not really that photogenic. But with that said, I still endure lugging around a Pentax 6x7 (and sometimes a 4x5 Crown Graphic) and a mess of lenses to all manner of locations in an attempt to finally capture that one perfect shot on a chrome. The real secret is to pack the minimal amount of gear into a really comfortable back-pack that you can wear for hours at a time. Having the pack supported on your hips with a wide, padded hip belt is essential. If your traveling alone the situation is obviously complicated because you also need to carry the camping supplies as well.</p>

<p>And don't forget the support for the RB. All the advantages of MF are lost if the final product suffers from camera shake. I pack a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod mated to an Acratech ball head. This setup is very light (as tripods go) but firm enough to support this film format. The Pentax 6x7 can be hand held and shot like a giant SLR if the lighting is right but the RB is more comfortable on a tripod. Regards.</p>

<p>I confess that my shooting with medium format has been much influenced by the distance I have to walk carrying them.<br>

However, it occurs to me that the <a href="http://www.blackrapid.com/products/cargo">Black Rapid</a> style straps used for heavy lens/camera combinations would probably work at least as well for one of the large medium format SLRs. There are really cheap knock-offs of the strap, but I decided to go for the original.</p>

<p>I use one all the time with a heavy 100-400mm lens and heavy camera and it practically makes the sense of weight and mass fade away, somehow.</p>

<p>My experience is taking an RB on daily, not intensive hikes up to 4-5 miles. A body with 2-3 lenses, 6 rolls of film and few accessories plus sturdy tripod and water. It was probably maximum I would do in relative comfort. I would not take this set up for multiday hiking with all camping/survival/food/drink gear needed. Personally, I'm not very creative when physically exhausted.</p>

<p> The camera is just weight. You need to rethink what else will or will not live in your backpack during the trip. Some solo hikers carry almost nothing gear wise. Balance your hiking gear need against the photo gear. Backpacks over 80lbs/36Kg are tough on mind and body. When backpacking 7-10 days my camera gear runs 25-30lbs/11-14Kg ,I have at times carried only a compact fixed lens 35mm but felt naked. It is all about priorities ... more camera gear = less food/clothes/camping gear. I would plan a strenuous day trip with full pack and RB67 kit (or a bag of misc stuff about the weight of the planned kit) to get the feel of the project. Start deleting non essential/ safety gear and check out ultra-lite hiking web sights and talk to your local hiking/camping retailers ... the staff do this all the time and know all kinds of stuff. Do you need a tent/sleeping bag or will a bivouac sack work? or maybe a tarp and blanket is all you need. Stove/fuel/cook-set or granola/jerky/pita bread. It is always all about your priorities and how strong ,stubborn and determined you are. First order of business is to have fun and be safe. Chris</p>

<p>I just bought an RB67 last week with three lenses from KEH for $350. I bought it for many of the same reasons you bring up. It's slower and more deliberate. Nice big negatives. Excellent glass. I've also used one to photograph many weddings. It's my favorite MF camera. That said, the Pentax 67 is a 6x7 format as well as an SLR. It's big enough that it forces you to slow down and think. It also has excellent glass and seems like it would be easier to handle in the situation you describe. Both are going to give good results and not get in the way of the work.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

Robert,

When I was young I hiked carrying a Bronica SQ-Ai with the 50, 80, and 150 lenses, two 120 backs, tripod, and 25 rolls of chrome. The

backpack had a liter bottle of water and trail mix. This was a load to carry around on day hikes through the Grand Canyon and other hilly

terrain. I eventually carried just the Bronica, one or two lenses and the tripod after the third day.

These days, I would carry a TLR or Mamiya 7 with the 43 or 80 when hiking or biking. The main reason is I can use a lighter tripod or use

a rock or fence to steady the camera. A zip lock bag of trail mix works as good as a bean bag to level your camera.

Do you intend to print your images bigger than 16x20? If not consider a mirror less digital camera. Otherwise have a hiking buddy along

to share carrying the gear load.

Ricky

<p>The answer is: it depends. I once brought an RZ on a three-day two-night backpacking trip in Death Valley, a few years ago. It was OK, but it's a lot of camera if you're watching your pack weight. (In Death Valley, you usually have to carry your water, too, so it wasn't a great choice.)</p>

<p>The camera's minimum 2495g with the normal lens and one film holder, which is 5 pounds 8 ounces for the metrically challenged. I can't remember, probably had an extra lens and a couple of film holders with me on that trip.</p>

<p>It gets worse. Once you bring the RZ, you're probably going to want a decent tripod, which is another 2 or 3kg minimum. Under some conditions you may be able to leave the tripod at home, but if you want to shoot at sunrise and sunset, you usually want a tripod, so factor it in. And then there's a meter, and film is 30g a roll. You'll probably be up to a minimum of 6kg of photo equipment (13 pounds), all things considered.</p>

<p>So, when I say 'it depends', I mean how much can you carry, how rough is the country you're crossing, and how much pain are you willing to endure for the benefit of having interchangeable lenses and filmholders. When I was young I could carry 35kg. Now I'm 60, and I try to keep it under 15kg. Every year I'm looking for a way to make my pack a bit lighter.</p>

<p>My current solution: I use a Rolleiflex (1120g) or Rolleicord (940g) for real backpacking trips, which for me means three to seven nights. I carry a cheap Slik monopod (350g) or sometimes a cheap Slik Sprint tripod (940g). I pack one or two rolls of film per day of travel, and I don't bring a meter, just sunny 16. Camera and film go in a dry bag, and I'm off. All in, this is under 2kg/4lb.</p>

<p>When the dust clears, it depends on your strength, the route, and your priorities. I think that time in Death Valley was the only time I carried the RZ as a backpacking camera, but it's great for day hikes where I don't have to carry all the overnight stuff.</p>

<p>Would I carry my RB back packing? Not on your life. Should you? Entirely up to you. At your age I might have, but then I wasn't the brightest bulb in the fixture. At least that's what my dad always told me.<br>

Check out Jim Zuckerman's stuff, much of his early work was with RB/RZs, and it's incredible.<br>

Want an easy test? Put a couple of bricks in your pack, add food, shelter, sleeping bag, etc., etc., and take a hike. I bet two miles in, you'll have your answer.<br>

I for one would suggest Mamiya/Pentax 645 equipment. Not quite the same neg, but damn close. With the current state of medium format prices even Hasselblad gear is affordable, if you like the square format.<br>

For cycling, don't put your photo gear in a pannier, all the shock/vibration will transfer directly to it. Use a handlebag bag with some "give" in the mounting system. It'll act like suspension for your cameras. If you ride a fully suspended bike, I ride a hard tail, you could mount a rear rack on the seat post and I think you'd be OK. Whatever you decide to carry make sure you pad it thoroughly in case of "face plants".<br>

A 6x9 view camera or Crown Graphic 23 might be even better. It'll shoot roll film, give you multiple formats (6x6, 6x7 or 6x9cm), offer minimal movements, and have interchangeable lenses. Focusing on the ground glass will be very similar to using a waist level finder. Plus most of these will be lighter than any other option you're considering.<br>

Jose', that's one bad ass trail!<br>

JD</p>

<p>Yes, decisions, decisions. I once lugged around a Fuji GX-680. That's 11 pounds! camera only. So we all have different views of a compromise, I went with Pentax 67II, and glad I did. I can now survive relatively in tact in the field, choosing lenses wisely. For the love for medium format has this issue that just goes with the territory. Take care of yourself if you want to make medium format work. I now take the time to train for a shoot, like the wield in the field! </p>

<p>I recently bought a used RB67 and find it hard to hand hold. A tripod is 99% necessary. It's awfully heavy and very bulky. There are other medium format cameras that are much lighter and much more compact; Fuji 645,6x6,6x7 Rangefinders, 6x6 Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords, and Mamiya 6x6 and 6x7 rangefinders. </p>

<p>I have an RB67 Pro S and several GS-1s. So far I haven't tried the Pro S with a left hand grip. For hand held shooting the GS-1 with a Speed Grip is much more comfortable that any RB or RZ. There is more than enough GS-1 equipment floating around to put together what you need. If I knew I would only be using the camera on a tripod then the RB is fine. I have lenses for it fro 65 to 250. For the GS-1 I have lenses from 50 to 200. I use my GS-1s mostly hand held and in good weather. I have carried SQ-As with the usual 50/80/150 combination, also for hand held shooting. If you can haul the weight and will use a tripod then an RB or RZ is fine. You have many lenses and accessories to choose from and your technique, rather than the brand of equipment, will determine the quality of the results. </p>

<p>As said, any 6x6 SLR and specially, any RF, are significantly smaller than a 6x7 SLR, so I think it`s worth considering.<br>

I understand the "ideal format" (6x7) vs. 6x6 format reasons (although I shoot both, and I have no issues with any of them... in fact, I have cropped 6x7 images just to make them look like made with a Hasselblad, let`s it here), but in many times there is no difference other than the rectangular vs square feel; magnification will be the same, resolution -due to the format- is exactly the same. </p>

<p>As said, any 6x6 SLR and specially, any RF, are significantly smaller than a 6x7 SLR, so I think it`s worth considering.<br /> I understand the "ideal format" (6x7) vs. 6x6 format reasons (although I shoot both, and I have no issues with any of them... in fact, I have cropped 6x7 images just to make them look like made with a Hasselblad, let`s it here), but in many times there is no difference other than the rectangular vs square <em>feel</em>; magnification will be the same, DoF, resolution -due to the format- is exactly the same.</p>

<p>A 6x6 image (Mamiya 6) into a 6x7 frame: Do you really need it to be 6x7?</p><div></div>

<p>And this one (Mamiya 6), vertical or horizontal?<br /> Maybe one centimeter of format extension is not worth one kilogram of extra weight in a hike.</p>

<p><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17784223-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" /></p>

<p> </p>

If you can get by with a fixed lens the Fuji rangefinder (which has a 90mm f3.5 lens) might fit the bill. I think the Fuji is a GS670 or something similar.

<p>It depends on the trip (are you with non-photographing company or focussed on the photography),<br>

on the focal lengths you want (I sometimes like to travel with a single standard lens length, but 50-80-120/150 adds weight),<br>

on the bag and other things that need to go in it;<br>

where you go: city (TLR or RF), nature (WLF or TLR) but your mileage may vary.<br>

I like the WLF cameras too, especially 6x6, and use some TLRs and a Rolleiflex 6008 integral. The latter comes with many modern advantages, and incredibly crisp lenses. When alone, I'd take it on a hike (I have the 80mm and 120mm plus 2x converter, but hope to add the 50mm). <br>

If I need to go lightweight, it's the Rolleiflex 2.8C or Microflex I choose (the latter has a Taylor Hobson lens with beautiful bokeh but the Rolleiflex 10-bladed Xenotar has a faster aperture and faster shutter while it is no slur in the bokeh department itself, just different). Or an Agfa Super Isolette, but that's not a WLF, yet even slower because you need to cock the shutter. Sharp though if in good consition. I use it with a Voigtlander Kontur viewfinder. I will soon try the Ensign Selfix 820 at 6x6 because it has a 105mm lens, thus allowing a 1.5 effect on the 75mm folders I have, while the combo with the Agfa or Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta is still small and portable.<br>

That said, I also have a Pentax 645N with 6 lenses. I prefer 6x6 but these lenses are incredible value (the release of the 645Z may change that). No WLF but a very bright viewfinder, that is a joy to use. It also is possibly the most ergonomical camera I've ever held.<br>

A WLF is great and I do love it, but you can go slow with a RF as well. <br>

I love my Sigma DP2M and DP3M, which are wonderful, but must confess that I still shoot film for 95%, and 5% DP3M.</p>

<p> </p>