Mamiya RZ67

<p>Hi there, Iam looking for some information regarding the Mamiya RZ67. i have tried various medium format cameras over the years including the Bronica Sqi, etrsi, Rollie 6 by 6, and the mamiya 330 series which currently use, but as much as i like it for it large negative and close up facility i am thinking about upgrading to try and get a better picture quality. Consequently i have been looking at the Mamiya 645 super and Pro but also the RZ67. I guess my main question is regarding the quality of the lens's compared to the 330 and some questions regarding the use of the RZ67. From what i understand all the Mamiya medium format cameras from the 645's to the 6 by7 's give outstanding image quality but it seems the RZ67 is superior to them all, however i am a little concerned regarding its "weight", i have never seen or held one and because of where i live would find it difficult to actually hold one to try it out, so wondered could someone give me an idea of how it would compare to using a Bronica SQi or even a 330, with both having the metered prisms on the cameras and taking into consideration that the difference in size of the negs how superior are the lens's compared to the 645 super for example.</p>

<p>any advice would be greatly welcome!</p>

<p>thanks <br>

nigel sinkins</p>

<p>The RZ-67 is MASSIVE, it dwarfs my Hasselblad 500c. I wouldn't dare use mine without a tripod.</p>

<p>Another route might be a Mamiya 7, if you are worried about weight and portability.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Yep, you can't really go wrong with Mamiya - even my coffee mugs are Mamiya (from the days when they had a boutique section on their website). The mugs are the only Mamiya hardware I bought new. OK, off the tangent and back to topic:<br>

C330 lenses are generally single coated, RZ lenses are multicoated. C330 shutter is mechanical (speeds not guaranteed), RZ shutter is electronic (unless using RB lenses). The camera is a beast, about 6 lbs (3kg) with the normal 90mm lens and waist level finder (add a pound or so for the prism finder). I have C330 and RB and when shooting handheld, I get better results with C330 because RB is heavy and generally not suited for handheld operation. Once on a proper tripod (big), RB lenses have a noticeable edge over C330 lenses (and RZ lenses are probably even better that RB lenses). BTW, you can use RB lenses (cheaper) on an RZ camera (that may be of some consideration). The main problem with C330 lenses if that they are a bit prone to flare.<br>

RB/RZ is significantly bigger than Bronica SQ. Bronica also has a 6x7 system (GS-1) but unlike RB/RZ there's no rotating back and that makes shooting verticals a nuisance.<br>

If you are thinking about going RZ67 route (in other words - tripod mounted), you may also want to take a look at Fuji 680 system. It's even bigger than RZ, bigger negative and Fujinon lenses are legendary for their image quality.</p>

<p>now days it's more about the quality of the scans, than the neg size.<br /> How big do you need to print? Carefully exposed 645 films, drum scanned can be blown up nearly poster sized. The 6x7 frame is almost twice the area of the 645 though. Roughly 3900 sq MM's (67) vs 2300 sq MM's (645). For comparison 35 MM frames are around 1200 sq MM's.<br /> <br />I truly think that 67's advantages over the smaller MF's is now negligible. Unless of course you are looking to make huge prints. If it were me, considering weight and bulk differences, I'd stay with 6x6 or 645 for ease of carry.</p>

<p>I personally never use my RZ unless it's on a solid tripod. I figure there's no point hauling that much camera unless I can wring all the quality out of it, and that means a tripod, a cable, and prefiring the mirror.</p>

<p>Having said that, there's a guy who used to post here, can't remember who it was, who did hand-held street photography with an RZ (I think, anyway, could have been an RB). Whatever works.</p>

<p>As to lens quality, I have latter-day lenses for both the RZ and for my Mamiya TLRs. I prefer the RZ images by far, but some of that probably may just be due to the size of the negatives. I'm a normal lens kind of guy, and I *really* like the 110/2.8. But for long backpack trips, I usually just take my Rolleiflex for reasons of weight.</p>