Im Blown Away By the Image Quality of the Mamiya RB67 !

I few weeks ago I bought an RB67 kit on ebay, 3 backs, 90mm lens and a bunch of other goodies for only $220.00. Well I

just got the first couple of rolls back and I am blown away by the IQ of that camera. Very sharp and contrasty, truthfully

much better then the stuff I used to do with my 5D ! And I am scanning the negs from the Mamiya.

 

I really cant believe that these are going for so cheap on ebay.

 

I will admit, it is a pain to carry the thing around the streets of NYC, but the IQ makes it worth it.

 

I am interested in a wide angle lens for a fine art project of interiors, rooms, living spaces, people in apartments etc.

Can anyone recommend which wide angle I should buy for this type of work?

 

I have been reading that the longer lenses are very popular, but for people up close and street type of photography I am

more in need of wider lenses.

 

thanks

<p>I have been shooting only with Hasselblads from 1980 till now. People ask me all the time why i dont do digital....this is why. Film has worked for over 100 years....I think it has a few more in it.</p>

<p>Well either the 50 or 65 mm.<br>

Jon -<br>

I prefer the 50 personally. (floating unit and C coating)<br>

Good chatter here and elsewhere.<br>

<a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00PPFb">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00PPFb</a><br>

<a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/001Nui">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001Nui</a><br>

<a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00DTF1">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00DTF1</a><br>

I too bought into RB about 3 1/2 years ago for pennies. What a lovely thing it is to see a great MF negative or slide! Somewhat of a pain in the butt to use but the results are seemingly without peer from the 35mm and similar sizes. Digital with the top bodies is coming close tho, but at quite a price tag for a hobbyist like myself.<br>

Enjoy<br>

Jim M</p>

 

<p>Jon, post some pictures, or the RB purchase never happened! <g></p>

Anand here is a couple of quick scans<div></div>

And another<div></div>

I like it as much as my 5D and even better for black and white. I am having trouble scanning color film, it

seems to have a green cast to it, but its probably my inexperience scanning

<p>With the 6x8 back, one can make a negative 5x the size of a 35mm negative. So the image quality improvememnt is understandable, especially when printing negatives in the traditional darkroom.</p>

<p>Nice work. Medium format film is definitely the way to go for B&W.</p>

<p>For the color casts... are you using an Epson with Epson software? I was never able to get color under control until I calibrated my monitor, installed Vuescan Pro, gave Vuescan the monitor calibration and set the output space, used the scan-the-leader-for-base-color trick and got careful with the Color tab. It's extra work but worthwhile.</p>

<p>Thanks Jon! Nice pictures, thank you for sharing. Which film are these taken with?<br>

As for scanning color negative film, let me repeat the question Andrew posed. Which scanner is this? If it is a Coolscan, I may be able to help you. Also, which color negative film are you trying to scan in?</p>

The Asian lady is Kodak 400BWCN C41 film. The Man in the chair is Portra 400 converted to 16bit greyscale

in vuescan. Im using an Epson V700 with Vuescan Pro. Here in an example of the green cast<div></div>

Thats Portra VC

<p>Some of the green cast is to be expected: there is green light reflected off the leaves. Also, Portra 160VC, in my experience, tends to cyan when scanning, and we are seeing that as well.<br>

Attached is a slightly better version of the same picture.</p><div></div>

<p>Welcome to the wonderful world of digital post :)</p>

<p>I put that in Photoshop, made a Color Balance layer and moved the green/magenta slider toward magenta and it cleared right up. Contrast and saturation are a bit high but the film gives you a lot to work with, either by saving a 16-bit file and working with it in PS, LR or whatever, or in Vuescan's adjustments. When I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, Auto Levels does wonders.</p>

YEa I guess I have to spend more time in post production with MF. Im used to my 5D which looks pretty good

right out of the camera, oftentimes

<p>Definitely plan on spending time post-processing, yes. Still, you can do yourself a favor by choosing films with the digital workflow in mind. A modern film like Pro160S, for example, <a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?imgid=1279-7">scans very well</a> when compared to 160VC.</p>

<p>There's no need to switch films. When you see an example of a film that "scans well" it's just that the person who scanned it got the color settings right. In truth, all current color negative films scan well, but each has its own color characteristics that let different sorts of errors in for each one. For example, "Ektar has a blue cast." The perception seems to be that you should just set it to color negative, and any further processing is cheating, but that's really not how it's meant to work.</p>

<p>Kodak 400VC is a fantastic scanning film, I have had excellent results using it and an Epson scanner with Vuescan, but (like all color negative films, and this is not a fault of the film but a characteristic of color negative technology in general) it needs its color tweaked.</p>

<p>The RB67 is an awesome beast. And keep in mind that the detail and grain you would get from the best 35mm at 8x10....you can now achieve in a 16x20 from the RB67.</p>

<p>If you're impressed with the V700....then you'll be blown away from a high end scan. I find that the V700 tops out around 2200ppi....as opposed to about 3800 on a Nikon 9000. The real rez from the V700 limits the max true rez on the scan to be about the same as a 24mp camera. Not bad though for $220.</p>

<p>I listed mine locally for $700 with 2 backs and 90 and 50 lens.....no takers.....not even at $500. I decided it was better to keep than flog for a couple of hundred bucks....especially for B&W.</p>

<p>I had a wedding on Saturday and I pulled out the RB67 Pro-SD w/ 127mm KL-L for the formals. Picked up the kit for 425 after shipping at Keh.com.<br>

Not only was the bridal party impressed and intrigued (and very willing to be in front of such a cool camera), but I'm also absolutely giddy to see the chromes come back. <br>

Black and white negatives are great too. I'm proud to be a part of the film revival revolution. At $8 a roll and $8 to develop from the local store, I only hope I can keep this alive for as long as I can.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And keep in mind that the detail and grain you would get from the best 35mm at 8x10....you can now achieve in a 16x20 from the RB67.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Larger if you're using the new T-Grain films. I have a TMax 400 (TMY-2) 35mm 8x10 that was cropped from a roughly 10x12+ enlargement on Ilford MGIV. Sticking my nose up to the print, with some imagination, you sort of see grain.<br /> I have an 8x10 of some Arista branded something or another (Agfa?) that's blotchy and grainy. This was from a few years ago so it's not the rebadged film "Made in America" by a "major film manufacturer." or the one Made in Japan by another major film manufacturer.</p>

<p>Both films were developed with D-76 1:1.</p>

<p>It wouldn't surprise me if you shot that RB67 with some TMX (TMAX 100) or Portra 160 and are able to optically enlarge that sucker to 20"x30" have that look virtually grainless.</p>

<p>I guess to really get the best out of it with a hybrid workflow, you'd have to scan with an Imacon or pay the bucks for a drum scan.</p>

<p>Although, <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WhwO">Philip Wilson</a> got some very respectable results with his Nikon 9000 (good luck finding one!) and his GX680 shot at 6x8.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

> When you see an example of a film that "scans well" it's just that the person who scanned it got the color settings right. In truth, all current color negative films scan well<br>

followed by<br>

> Kodak 400VC is a fantastic scanning film<br>

Some slight irony in your statements there, you dont think, Andrew? :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some slight irony in your statements there, you dont think, Andrew? :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all. Most current films are fantastic scanning films, and 400VC is one of them. Ergo, 400VC is a fantastic scanning film. It happens that I usually find the right settings, so I have many examples of films that "scan well".</p>

<p>The Mamiya RB67 equipment is a steal. Try to stay with at least "C" lens. Get a 180mm for portraits and a 50mm for a wide angle. In my wet darkroom 16x20 prints are no problem.</p>

<p>Hi Jon, I did the same thing...I went scrounging on KEH.com for ugly and bargain grade RB67. The body had a tough life. Then I couldn't stop...I bought an EX condition Pro S body with one broken focus knob for 25 bucks. I bought two backs from the AS IS portion of the catalouge for 20 bucks a piece and refoamed them myself. Got a 90, 127 and a 210 lens all for under 300 Dollars! Absolutely love this thing! When loaded up and extended with the wlvf this thing looks more like a weapon than a camera! Great purchase, now I need to learn how to scan as well. still have a traditional dark room.<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>My biggest prints from the RB67 were a 32x40 from Fuji NPS 160....that had a small amount of grain, but nthing bad. It was a wedding group shot and it scanned very well. Sharp as all get out.</p>

<p>The other was a landscape shot at 32x40 from Fuji Astia 100F. There is pretty much no grain visible. Just stunning! </p>