Jump to content

Just WHO is Using RBs and RZs Today and WHY


scott_fleming1

Recommended Posts

Serrious question. No opinion here or attitude. I was at one time

intriqued by these cameras and did some research. I liked the

cameras and still crave the format size but I just couldn't hack the

size of these beasties. Obviously a lot of them are being put on

the used market but perhaps that's just the normal tunover of a

popular camera plus quite a few photogs going digital? Don't know.

I'd like to hear from those who do know and are perhaps still using

them. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of those cameras are/were used in studio work. As you say, they are not good in the field unless used on a support. There are a lot of them on the market because a lot of the working professionals who used them are moving to digital, as demanded by a changing market.

 

I like the 6 X 7 format, but not the bulk and weight, so I use a Mamiya 7II, which does a lot of the things that I want. The large amount of used equipment has created some good prices for anyone wanting to use one of these machines.

 

Cheers,

 

Joe Stephenson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studio photographers like these cameras as do strong wedding

photographers, landscape, commercial and product photogs.

Actually these are excellent cameras for professionals.

Particuarly professionals who want to invest in one system that

is capable of performing most any photographic task. What

follows is a non complete list of reasons these cameras are

rather universal: Interchangable backs available in 120 &220,

Bellows for close focus macro and copy photo restoration,

Interchangable lenses for anything from scenic to portrait work.

Leaf shutters for flash sync at all speeds. Actually if I were a full

time pro and could only afford one system I would choose one of

these. Another thing to think about is the negitive size. 6x7 is

excellent for retouching blemishes wrinkles, adding catch light to

the eyes, removing a piece of lint from a suit. These cameras are

a fine choice for true pros and there prices on the used market

also brings a fine camera within reach of serious non pros. Many

of the things noted above are not possible with other types of

cameras like rangefinders tlr s , and other slr s without

expensive accessories. I almost forgot the rotating back is great

on or of the tripod for swithing from horz. to vert. without turning

the whole camera. This is however a heavy camera and not my

favorate for casual shooting but is a good camera system with

affordable accessories on the used market which can be

overhauled to good working order. Enjoy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott:

I want to add to my above response. You should know that my

photo friends think I am a dinosor. My newest medium format

camera is probubly 30 years old. I have to wait that long to afford

them! I know nothing about digital. For me the fun is in the shoot

and producing a large, sharp, well exposed and composed

enlargement. If the rain stops today i might drag out my old RB67

non s or sd and my great big heavy 30 year old tripod and go

take some pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using a late model Hasselblad system, many times lugging around a body, 3 or 4 backs, 4 or 5 lenses, all in a backpack, all day long.

 

Intrigued by the 6 x 7 format, I bought and tested an RZ and now mostly use that. It's not that much more to lug around than the Hasselblad in the backpack. I also use it for a little studio work. I think the weight and size are exagerated if we limit the comparisons to medium format SLR's. Only if I was holding it in my hands for hours at a time would I say that it's a noticeable difference compared to Hasselblad, Bronica SLR's, etc. It's just a bit too big for me to swing it around as easily as a Hasselblad. It's that more than the weight.

 

Now if the comparison is with a different animal like a MF rangefinder, then yes, it's a major difference. I need to go light on an upcoming trip as I'm focusing on 6 x 17 shots, bringing a 617 camera and 2 lenses, so I'll bring a Mamiya 7 for the odd 6 x 7 shot. No comparison there with the size and weight of an RZ system.

 

Summary is that there are those of us who lug around RZ and RB systems for field use. They only seem huge when you compare them with systems that really are not in the same genre of camera, like 35mm or rangefinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

I've been using an RZPro II for the last 3 years. I do advertising, product, food, architectural and corporate photography.

 

Originally I bought the RZ to replace my Hasselblad system. At the time Mamiya was running rebates and specials where if you buy a body, back and normal lens, you get one back free...buy a 250mm lens, another back free etc. I purchased an RZ Pro II body, 110mm, 50mm, 250mm lenses, Meter prism finder, professional bellows lens shade, polaroid back and 3-120 film backs. With the rebates at the time the entire system cost $8,000. It was too good a deal to pass up.

 

For me the advantages of the RZ over the Hasselblad are:

 

6x7 format

 

electronic shutter speeds and in-between shutter speeds ie: 1/45 between 1/30 and 1/60

 

bellows focusing...no more extension tubes and extremely close focusing with the 50mm and even with the 110mm

 

revolving back

 

Accurate metering with the meter prism allowing spot or averaging though I usually use an incident or spot meter (most of my work in the studio is with strobe)

 

Great lens quality on a par with Hasselblad.

 

250mm lens stops down to f-45

 

Seamless compatability with digital backs ( My Hasselblad is a 500CM)

 

The only disadvantage is weight. I put all of this equipment in a large pelican case which is not lightweight case, and I'd bet it weighs close to 40 lbs.

 

I always use the RZ on a tripod. I can't imagine hand holding one even with an extremely fast shutter speed.

 

Since purchasing a Kodak ProBack Plus in April 2002, I haven't used this camera very much with film, but I do have over 9,000 captures on it using the ProBack. Just because I went digital, that doesn't mean I don't use the RZ anymore.

 

The RZ is built like a tank and hasn't needed any service since I bought it. Can't say that for the Hasselblad which is also a great camera though it seems to be more delicate.

 

So what's my Hasselblad been doing for the past 3 years ? My wife uses it to shoot "fine-art" landscape BW. She backpacks the Hasselblad on our phot "safaris' I backpack a field 4x5. 4 lenses and quickloads, which is much lighter than the RZ.I taught her the Zone System and she does her own film developing and fiber printing. She used to shoot 35mm, now her Nikon equipment sits in the closet. I'll rescue her Nikon AF lenses when I get a Kodak 14N. If Kodak ever releases the 14N and fixes the noise problem they've been having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer coincides with many others on here. I found a deal on a RZ Pro II package that seemed great, so I bought it. I'm not a pro, and actually do not make any money from photography whatsoever, so it ended up being a little too much invested at once. The negatives and transparencies I got from it are absolutely great, no complaints there. I mostly do landscape photos, so I found that I could get into a good 4x5 setup for the same price that also weighs about the same, but is a little less convenient to use. Eventually when I can afford a good MF system, the RZ is still a possibilty. It's as good or better in quality and versatility than most MF cameras, you just pay a little more in cost, size, and weight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still use an RZ and it's wonderful range of lenses...from Fisheye

to 210 APO. The only one I've sold is the 360 which I rarely used.

 

Mostly studio work, but I do have the Mamiya bracket and have

successfully shot some location portraits hand held (waist level

finder), with the soft focus 180. In fact, some of the most

innovative lenses are available in this system. Like the Short

Barrels which allow use on a shift device.

 

I now do most of the work using a Kodak ProBack. The lens

factor is somewhat limiting, but hopefully the 43 will be out soon

and slove that problem. No current DSLR can match the image

quality of the RZ with the Kodak Digital back. I have the Canon

1Ds. It can't. I've tested the Kodak 14N and it certainly can't. Now

the age of a full 645 sized 22 meg digital back is upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,<br>

I use my RB for architecture, still lifes, and portraits--basically, most commercial work. It's also wonderful for landscapes, but as you know, it gets quite heavy if you bring more than one lens and a couple backs. They're really not THAT heavy though, especially if you use a normal lens and a waistlevel finder. In reality, I bet most of the people who complain about the weight of the RB/RZ series would do better to take a few pounds off their tummy, instead of their camera bags.<br><br>

 

These cameras are extremely robust and reliable; they can do nearly anything you need them to, except fold into a smaller size. Oh well... there's no free lunch, right?<br><br>

 

The best part about using an RB is that used stuff is really, really cheap. Everybody is selling their MF gear to go get a new digital SLR, so the market is flooded at the moment. Great time to buy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pros and college students mostly.

 

I used an RB67 when doing photography night classes, and the same beasts (which were old then) are still in daily use!

 

The thing that really amazed me was viewing my first b&w roll under a focus finder on an enlarger. Having been used to seeing the grain on 35mm negs, it came as a shock when I could barely see any on a 67 10x8 enlargement!

 

Seeing those negs really convinced me to get a 645 in the end, which is more portable, and which still does good studio shots with a strobe, although the bellows focusing on the RB67 was superb for table top stuff.

 

I just wished that digital backs or MF film scanners were more affordable! Thank goodness for developments like the Canon 9900F and the similar Epson 3200, which bode well for those of us on a budget!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RZ is the 'standard' studio camera for a great deal of the work done by most professionals. The reasons have been given above, and I think the most important of these is the revolving back. <br>My RZ is now my smallest camera. Many of the jobs that I would have done on 5"x4" or 10"x8" until recently can now be done on the RZ because of the size of the scans/digital image, which allows perspective correction to be carried out on computer without serious loss of quality.<p>Whether or not they are a good buy second-hand, I'm not sure - working professionals can put 40 years of amateur use into just 1 year and I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to buy one of my old cameras!<p>As for ease of use, in the studio the RZ's are almost always fitted to a studio stand, on location we use the largest Manfrotto tripods but occasionally we have to hand-hold, and never experience any real difficulty.<br>Hope this helps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawrence or 'Leafshutter' will sell you a brand new RB Pro-SD body, 127KL lens, and RFB, for about $1750 as of a year ago(warranty included), I figure less now, with Robert White not far behind, these cameras coming down in price is a boon for a lot of folks.

 

These cameras being dumped for digital is going to have the reverse affect that some people think it will, it is going to increase the number of folks getting into MF. IMHO the US market for camera gear has always been overpriced, these prices are now at least becoming halfway decent.

 

Any gear you got you're going to have to lift/move/hold up for long periods of time, lift some weights, but let's be real something had to be sacrificed for the big neg, I've got the RB Pro-SD becasue you get a big neg in return for a little exercise you should be doing in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Flo, can I call you Status ? #8^)

 

Some lenses are better than others as Marc said. Focal length will change how your image looks. A 90mm or 110mm normal on the RZ will look a little different with different depth of field than a 75mm or 80mm normal on a 645 and some lenses might have a slightly different "color flavor".

 

But the answer to your question is that the back is the same so there won't be that much difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shoot with a couple of RB Pro-S bodies and 3 lenses. While in hindsight I now wish I

had gone with the RZ (as I'm now realizing the advantages when it comes to using a

digital back, which I hope to acquire in the next few years), the RB has proven itself to

be in incredibly durable and versatile camera system. The big negatives are great,

the glass (KL lenses, same optical formula as the RZ glas) is so sharp it's almost

unsettling sometimes, the system lends itself well to all kinds of different

applications, and it stands up to abuse like you wouldn't believe. I've used/tested a

bunch of other MF systems, and my personal feeling is that none of them have the

same kind of feeling of absolute bombproof-ness that the RB has. Mine have been

dropped onto concrete, rained on, jostled and vibrated to no end, stored in damp

conditions, etc and have absolutely never given me any trouble nor have they given

any indication of being any worse for the wear. It's the kind of camera that, were it to

be kicked down a flight of stairs, you probably wouldn't be surprised if ti came out

unscathed (not that I'm advocating doing this...). Sure, it's a big camera, but given

the quality of the optics and the smooth operation (less mirror-slap than a Mamiya

645), I really don't see it as being much of an issue. When you're hauling 400+

pounds of lighting gear around, the weight of the camera really doesn't seem all that

bad. I'm not a big guy, either - 5'7" 150 lbs - so it's not like the camera is

particularly small relative to me. Once you get used to the camera itself, the physical

size of it tends to fade into the background, I think.

<p>

The RZ in particular seems to be a very suitable platform for a digital back, and in fact

for that reason I'll probably be switching to it from the RB in the next couple of years.

The electronic operation of the camera integrates well, it seems to me, and the

super-sharp optics of the system seem like they would lend themselves

particularly well to cranky digital backs. Other benefits like the in-between shutter

speeds help too. All in all, the RB does seem a little antiquated in design as

compared to the RZ, but I still see them both as extremely reliable, versatile, and

capable systems that won't be going away any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the main reason most people who are using these 6x7 cameras use them for the larger negative size. Judging from previous posts, this may be an oversimplified answer, but I think it is a pretty accurate one. I think everything else is peripheral to this. Me - I prefer the smaller size of the Bronica GS-1, and the helicoid focusing, so that is what I use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott: You can read between the lines of the above answers and get this, but few respondents separated the two models. The RZ is has been one of the (if not THE--I think it's used more than Hasselblad now) most used professional med. format cameras of the past two decades, but the introduction of the RZ helped relegate the RB mostly to hobbyists and college photo labs. The RZ is heavy, but the extra pound + of the RB is TOO heavy for a lot of people (a friend of mine who weighs about 110# uses her RZ handheld, and finds it easier to handle without the grip. I use the grip.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

I bought one because I wanted an slr studio camera in 6x7. The prices have come down to ridiculously low levels (due to a lot of pro's going digital) on very nice cameras. I got one with all new seals 127 c lens, caps, shade, etc. for $650 including shipping. I'd rate the camera as a 9+ in condition.

 

The camera is just plain great for studio work with a rectangular negative. With the rotating back its fabulous for using on a tripod. If you have a grip for it, its not even that bad hand held. (of course I'm 6'4 and 250 lbs so this is sort of subjective.) With the leaf shutter you can sync flash at all speeds. There is mirror lockup for slower shutter speeds and a pretty good selection of used lenses to choose from. You get used to the size in a hurry. The only time it seemed truely large to me was when I first got it and then when I had to try to fit it into a camera bag. (fits in the space (and then some!) of my C330 and 3 lenses!)

 

If you want 6x7 on the cheap and don't mind a range finder, you can still go with a Koni Omega (which I have and can heartily recommend) and/or one of the old Mamiya Press cameras. My Koni Omega with 2 lenses weighs less (slightly) than my RB with just the 127 lens. Its faster to use as well. I tend to use the koni in the field and the rb in more controlled environments. If I didn't have the koni I'd still lug around the rb in the field. Its not that heavy and besides, there always ought to be a little 'pain and suffering' in art. ;)

 

Its been a fun camera system and though I am far from professional, I do enjoy using a well made and well designed camera. This fits both of these and its a bargain to boot!

 

Good luck,

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Scott,

 

One more vote here for RZs in favor of Hasselblads - I realize

that any camera preference is very subjective, but for my work the

choice was clear. I had 3 Hasselblad 500CMs and used them

for all my medium format professional work for nearly 12 years. I

traded the lot (3 bodies, 6 lenses, backs, pola backs, finders,

tubes etc.) for RZs in 1992 - since then I have upgraded to RZ

Pro IIs. The switch made a huge difference to me.

 

Main differences? 6x7 transparencies as opposed to effective

645 (all my work is for magazines and brochures and almost

never printed square). 8 second maximum, electronically timed

exposures (with 1/2 stop incriments) as opposed to 1 second.

Easy multiple exposures - no having to remove the magazine.

Consistent 77mm filter sizes instead of all over the place. No

mirror cut off (!) with lenses over 150mm. Quick operation - no

need to insert darkslide and remove magazine just to remove

prism/finder. Bellows focusing for quick close ups. No jams,

removed darkslide storage, no need for "matched" inserts (and

the resulting overlaps when assistants screw up)... I could go on

- suffice to say that the RZs solved an enormous amount of

irritations for me and made my working life a lot easier. Lens

quality is a non-issue, the RZs lenses are simply superb (as

were my Hasselblad lenses).

 

As I also shoot a lot of 4x5, the RZs seem relatively small,

although for handholding the Hasselblads are obviously more

convenient - that just isn't a big factor for me as I rarely use them

off the tripod and when I do it isn't an issue.

 

Each to his own though - that's the beauty of it! We have lots of

choices, but in answer to your question there are a lot of pros

who use the RZs and RBs every day and for whom anything else

requires too many compromises.

 

All the best,

 

John Bellenis - www.johnbellenis.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use a Mamiya RZ for:

<p>

<ul>

<li>Portraits and products in the studio

<li>Street photography (yes, it's true, I haul that thing around and use it handheld... it's GREAT... really it is... :-)

<li>Landscape where my Linhof SuperTech is either too slow or fails to have a lens long enough

</ul>

<p>

I use a Mamiya 7 for:

<p>

<ul>

<li>Travel photography (light enough to pack around without impacting the number of business clothes I carry)

<li>Street photography where I know the 80mm is the only thing I need

<li>Studio portraits (with the Hasselblad was in the shop. Seriously.)

</ul>

<p>

I like 120 and 4x5 formats for the way they print B&W. No digital system (affordable or not) can come close for the kinds of things I'm looking to do. When I do color work and need digital, I have the negs scanned.

<p>

For the cost of a mint used Hasselblad 500CM I picked up an entire Mamiya RZ system (65L-A, 110W, 180W-N, 360W, three film backs, and bunch of other goodies). It's proven to be more reliable than the Hasselblad.

<p>

I have yet to see any compelling reason to move to digital. Perhaps I am a Luddite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

i recently bought the hasselblad h1 and im really happy with it, although its a pain that all

the lenses have to be h1 lenses, its a whole new system so it sucks that you can't use any

other lenses than the 5 lenses.......i just wanted to know if somebody knew how this

camera works with the digital backs...im planning to invest in one and i would like some

feedback...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...