Medium Format Camera for Nature Photography, etc.

My old Mamiya RB67 Pro-S recently bit the dust. While shooting, a

hairline crack in the mirror turned into a split down the middle, and

not long after, a small piece broke off. I only paid about $200 for

the body (and it's not in great condition), so it's not really worth

it to try and get the mirror repaired.<br><br>

 

So this leaves me with the need for a new 2-1/4 camera. Basically,

I've narrowed my choices down to another RB, or a Hasselblad

(probably a 500C or CM).<br><br>

 

My main interest is landscape photography, with the occasional

portrait/group/etc. shot worked in. In my opinion, the RB67 is very

close to perfect, as far as MF SLRs go. It's got the rotating back,

big 6x7cm neg, bellows focusing, excellent optics, and reasonable

prices. However, the main drawback (which is especially important to

me) is that the thing is <b>heavy</b>. I do a lot of backpacking and

lugging this camera around (not to mention the tripod to go with it)

gets to be a bit of a pain. So then comes Hasselblad. I am attracted

to this system because of its lighter weight, greater durability (or

so I've been told), and excellent reputation with regards to optics

and build quality. However, I'm turned off by the higher cost, lack

of bellows focusing, and smaller negative. Which do you think would

better suit my purposes?<br><br>

 

I know this decision is subjective, but surely somebody has been in a

similar situation at some point. If anybody can offer advice, I would

really appreciate it!<br><br>

 

By the way, my decision is influenced by the fact that I've got a

couple of back and a lens + bellows hood for the Mamiya. However, if

Hasselblad is THAT much better than the Mamiya, I might just go for

it. Before anybody mentions it, I am tempted to say forget it, and go

to 4x5", but I don't really want to sacrifice the convenience of roll

film at this point.<br><br>

 

Sorry for the lengthy post, and thanks for your responses.

Well, IMHO, the Hassy's NOT that much better, but it IS that much smaller and lighter. But the FIRST questions I'd ask is what type of lenses do you need, and how important is Macro work to what you do. Because if Macro is NOT that important to you, it sounds like the Mamiya 7 rangefinder would be perfect for you. And if interchangeable lenses aren't that critical, I'd be looking at the Fuji 670/690 rangefinders, or a Plaubel Makina, and also throw a good TLR into the mix like a Rollei or a Yashica.

 

Don't get me wrong, Medium Format SLRs are great, and I use one - the Pentax 67 system. But you haven't mentioned ANY of the reasons that would cause an SLR to stand out as the proper choice - Those reasons would be the need for Telephoto lenses or or Macro work. You might also be better served by a really good Rollfilm field view camera like a Linhoff Super Technika or a Horseman or Wista.

 

We need more info about what it is you need to understand what would work best for you. But right now, I could see a reason to recommend almost anything EXCEPT a big bulky SLR like a Mamiya RB/RZ, and a Hassy wouldn't be that big an improvement

The obvious answer is a roll film back on a 4x5 - shoot 6x12, or 6x9 or 6x7 and sheet film when it suits... You get a lighter camera and the focusing advantages of both movements and the bellows - howerver don't expect it to be fast and spontanious. The RB is pretty much the ultimate studio camera - but as a field camera it leave some what to be desired.

Hi Douglas,

As for now, I'd like to stick to an SLR. I have to make the equipment pay for itself by shooting portraits and whatnot, and I also enjoy doing close-up work. Sometime in the future I'd like to add a wide-angle lens, like a 65 or 50.

 

Have any landscape photographers used both Hassy and Mamiya for their work? If so, which did you prefer?

I'd agree with Doug, with the following possible alternative:<br>

If you need interchangeable lenses, go with a Mamiya 6. If your backpacking is that important to you, and you really want to travel light and compact, the Mamaya 6 has a handy collapseable lens mount. It packs away in even less room than the Mamiya 7, plus it's (relatively) inexpensive on the used market. Lenses are great. Of course the Mamaya 7 gives you that 6x7 neg you love so much.<br>

But, if you can live with a single focal length, a TLR of your favorite variety would be your best bet, and would definitely be the lightest most compact setup.

Did you price a mirror replacement? Is the cost of a different camera system worth the lighter weight compared with just replacing a mirror?

 

If you like the 6x7 negative but don't want to keep using your RB lens(es), your main new SLR choices are the Pentax 67 (or newer 67II) or the just-discontinued Bronica 67. Both weigh somewhat less than the RB, and the other tradeoffs are widely known (no backs or high-speed flash sync for the Pentax, virtually no rental equipment for either). The Pentax doesn't have bellows focusing either, but you can easily use extension tubes, so I'm not sure why you prefer the bellows (whose design is responsible for much of the RB's weight).

Joey, you say you shoot landscapes and you specifically don't mention rangefinders as a choice you are interested in. I assume that you take advantage of polarizers and graduated filters. You also say you like the bellows focusing, so I assume you also like to shoot close/macro too.

 

If all these are true, avoid the Mamiya 6 or 7, as the closest focusing for each is three feet. Although you can use a special Mamiya drop-down polarizer to work with these cameras, it isn't fast to work with, and you still are hit-and-miss when it comes to grad filters. If you shoot close and use graduated filters, a SLR is a better tool for the job. For other uses (street, travel) the Mamiya rangefinders are quite nice, however.

 

For landscape MF photography and occasional portraits (without needing high-speed flash sync), the least expensive option among currently produced cameras is the Pentax 67 system, which also has some of the very best lenses. The mirror slap can be considerable, so a decent tripod is recommended, as is one of the bodies with mirror-lock up. It's a very afforable way to get excellent photos.

 

But I still think that if you have accumulated Mamiya RB lenses and accessories, you should just get used to the weight of the RB (maybe 1 pound more than the Pentax?) and get the lens replaced.

Obviously, you have lenses for the camera, a back and a finder. Get another body. There is an advantage to using a rotating back for landscapes; you can shoot one vertical and one horizontal without flipping the camera on its side. This is the advantage of using this camera over most other 6X7 cameras. the rangefinders for landscapes are still difficult to use especially if you use graduated and polarizing filters, let alone dealing with parallax.

You can't have it all, simply said. I've also looked for the perfect

camera with a 6x7 neg, SLR, lightweight, inexpensive, with

movements, etc. So far I've tried the Rollei SL66, Mamiya 7, Fuji

GA645zi and an Ebony 23S (6x9 view camera) for landscapes.

In my situation, I take the Fuji 645zi rangefinder for lightweight

backpacking trips and travel. Just bought the Mamiya 7, but am

selling it to pay for some wedding bills.... Sold the Rollei SL66.

It had a big neg plus a little front tilt and Zeiss lenses, but not

nearly enough coverage to use the tilt extensively. The Ebony is

the best answer for me. Small and light enough to fit into my

LowePro Orion AW fanny pack with a Horseman back, 3 lenses,

loupe and filters. It has movements, uses rollfilm backs, have

the option of many excellent LF lenses and is fairly compact.

 

Your situation is probably a bit different. Since you already have

RB accessories why not get another RB? If you want to invest in

a new system for landscapes then I'd go with a view camera.

You can pick up a Shen Hao 4x5 for $625, buy a rollfilm back for

it and a few lightweight lenses.

 

Or you can buy another RB body for the portraits and save up a

little for a camera that you can use for landscapes. It's seems

very difficult to try to get a camera to do everything. The RB is

perfect for groups and portraits in studio, but not very good in the

field.

 

Perhaps a Fuji GSW690 would suit you. I've heard that it is an

excellent camera for landscapes.

I would get a good Rollei tlr for the backpacking, and either fix the RB body or buy another. The thing about mf slrs is that the bodies are not the nost expensive part, its the lenses and backs that will eat you up.

Have you considered fixing it yourself? Might be worth a shot if you consider the body a goner anyway. I replaced a mirror in 35mm slr, and it really was not that tough. I found an old polaroid slr at a flea market, pulled its mirror out and cut it to fit. Worked great, and kept another old camera out of the trash bin.

Joey, reading over your post, you feel that "the RB-67 is very close to perfect, as far as MF SLRs go." And it sounds like the type of shooting you do makes an SLR the right choice (I know I could not be without DOF preview for my nature wanderings). Plus you have equipment already. Stick with the RB. If you've got money to spend (eyeing Hasselblad implies that you do) buy yourself a nice lens to expand your RB system.

 

This may sound strange, but I love using the RB as a field camera. Sure, after a while it feels like it was cast from lead, but it builds character. ha ha. Really, though, I think if you have the right carrying setup, a small RB system isn't that bad. Try a good quality, smaller photo backpack, or a shoulder bag with that op/tech strap, and carry the tripod over your shoulder.

 

Since you do a lot of backpacking, I can understand the desire to lighten the load. But if it's the shooting that's the most important thing, I think the couple extra pounds are worth it.

Joey,

 

I shoot landscape using both MF and LF. If you want to stick with rollfilm, there is a wonderful choice that no one has mentioned: the Fuji GX680III. Yes, it's large and heavy, but not much more than the RB that you're used to. The huge advantage to the Fuji is that you get movements with every lens, as you'd get in LF, but with the speed and convenience of MF. No sheet film, no inverted image, etc. It also has bellows focus, and therefore built-in closeup capability with almost every lens. It's a terrific camera and, if handled right, very usable in the field. Mine goes everywhere with me. I shoot 4x5 if time and circumstances permit, but 75% of the time I'm using the 680. Once you've gotten used to having tilt and rise, you'll wonder how you ever got along without them :)

 

I've got a comprehensive review of the Fuji on my website: www.dannyburk.com, then to "reviews". Don't overlook a fantastic camera that's ideal for landscape; sure, everyone will tell you that it's huge, but I consider that a small price to pay in return for its great advantages.

personally, i love the mamiya 6, but for landscape i find it limiting because the lenses don't focus that close, and the short telephoto is relatively hard to use.

The Fuji that Danny recommends is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the RB, will not give you appreciably better images (although 6x8 images fit better on print pages, giving you a slightly larger negative space to work with), has slower lenses (which are also larger, heavier and more expensive), and you can count on one partially amputated hand the number of shops in the USA that rent Fuji bodies and lenses.

 

By the way, Danny's review is at

 

http://www.dannyburk.com/fuji_gx680iii.htm

Visit www.luminous-landscape.com and read the review of the Ebony RSW45 with the roll film back. From what you describe I think that will be ideal.

 

Hasselblad vs. Mamiya comes down to weight. If the Mamiya is too heavy (that is a personal call) the Blad is better. If you want 6x7 for landscape I don't think you can beat the Pentax 67II.

 

Michael Reichmann wrote that the Canon 1Ds is better than 645 film in terms of overall output, not necessarily resolution. I mention this because it seems silly to spen the $$$ for a Hasselblad when 35 mm digital will be able to match it affordably in a couple years. If you crop 6x6 to a rectangle you get 645, but you knew that.

 

I mention that because for a landscape/nature photographer there will basically be two levels of quality, 35 mm digital and 4x5. I discount medium format digital based on likely cost for the forseeable future.

 

The only reason to spend money on medium format is if best quality for lowest cost is important, or if like me, you simply prefer to shoot with medium format equipment.

I have similar interests as you and use the 500CM. It is an ideal camera for landscape and a 2 lens outfit can be carried without much concern for extra weight. The real benfit is the relatively small size and robustness, the very good lenses are a bonus but there is insufficient difference to warrant swapping systems. You will need to budget for the latest focus screen and ideally a CM not C. You cannot beat your Mamiya for MF close-up photography, the blad can do it by adding tubes at a reasonable cost but this set-up is awkward in comparison.

Here's an alternative kind of answer/question-what type of backpack do you have?As weight is your main gripe with the RB,I would suggest you try a properly fitted backpack in a reputable outdoor store.I found that I can walk miles more with my full mf kit(645,4 lenses,backs,meters,filters etc.)inside a small padded case and separate lens pouches,which in turn fit nicely into a 35litre Karrimor rucksack.It has cured my aching back/shoulders and I am more inclined to venture out nowadays.It's all in the fit apparently.Just a thought.Of course,if you already use a regular backpack,ignore me for the fool that I am!

Presumably if the mirror had not broken you would have happily kept on lugging the RB around and liking the final pictures. Why not simply get a replacement body, and keep the current one for spares?

" Hasselblad vs. Mamiya comes down to weight. If the Mamiya is too heavy (that is a personal call) the Blad is better. If you want 6x7 for landscape I don't think you can beat the Pentax 67II. "

 

I agree with that, with one caveat: the mirror slap in the Pentax necessitates a larger, sturdier, more impact-absorbing tripod so there probably aren't any total weight savings. (But I do prefer the look from those Pentax Takumar lenses.)

Joey,

I bought an RB67 a few years ago and loved it, loved the pictures it made, etc., but the reality for me was it was heavy/bulky enough, I would tend to grab a Nikon when I went out the door and then wish I'd used MF. Carrying and shooting with the RB in the field wasn't enjoyable, it was a chore, especially for macro. I finally found a deal on a 500C Hasselblad with 80mm Planar which is much, much nicer to carry and use. I put my 500cm with back, WL finder and 80mm on my kitchen scale - approx. 3 1/4 pounds. The RB67, back, WL finder and 127mm - just over 6 pounds. A 4X5 Super Graphic with RB67 rollback and 6" Artar in Compur shutter - a little under 6 pounds. Weight is only part of story. The size difference between the two cameras both when carrying and handling is just as important, although harder to quantify (as the joke goes - RB stands for Really Big). Hasselblad will cost you more money, maybe close to twice as much. Doing macro, you will need at least a 10mm and 21mm extension tubes to focus as close as the RB does (probably around $75 each used). I haven't done direct comparision shots between the two cameras, but I suspect there isn't a difference you will see in normal print viewing. If it sounds like I'm strongly pushing Hasselblad, I actually think getting another RB body is the sensible thing for you to do, unless hauling the RB seems to be diminishing your enjoyment. If so, then think about changing systems. A final thought - the Hasselblad is probably faster shooting for your portrait work, which may or may not be important to you. If you ever miss expressions while winding and cocking the RB, it is something to think about.

First, thank you everybody for your responses. I've taken them all into consideration.

 

For those that are interested, here's how I solved my problem. I bought a replacement body for my RB for about $250, to use as a serious studio tripod camera, and when I won't be far from the car. However, I also picked up a good-condition Yashicamat 124G TLR for those times when I'd like the big negative but can't haul around a bulky SLR and heavy tripod. This funky old camera is a lot of fun to use!

 

At any rate, I can't really afford a Hasselblad. I think the TLR will do just fine.

 

Thanks!

James:

A roll film back on a 5x4 may be the ideal MF for landscapes, but not light: but Leonard says it does not have to be very heavy.

 

I think the ideal camera would be a modern 69 612 or 617 folding camera with some movements � does anybody make one?

 

I am getting a Canham 617 roll film back, and might get something lighter than my Sinar p to put it on.

Joey,

 

I think that your solution was probably the best one you could have come up with. The reality is, for Medium Format, there is no one system that is best for everything. Personally, I use a 6x7 SLR, a 6x7 Rangefinder, and a 6x6 TLR. Both the 6x7 Rangefinder and the TLR were very low cost purchases, (A Koni-Omega Rapid M, entire outfit including 2 backs cost me less than $200, and a Yahshica Mat124 that cost me a bit over $100). These cameras are both perfect for me in that I use them where there are SPECIFIC shortcomings of my chosen SLR system (in my case, the Pentax 67) that I can't afford to have for a specific assignment, which are: Slow Flash Sync and the overall obtrusiveness and bulkiness of the system. In general, the Pentax is used for about 70% of my MF work, and the other two cameras each are used for between 10-20% of my MF work. But since they were both less than $200 investments, they certainly earn their keep even with just occasional use.

Have the mirror replaced or do it yourself. In the worst case, buy an old Polaroid One Step, pry it apart, remove the mirror, cut it down and contact cement it in the old body. If the mirror it thinner that the old one, glue in a paper spacer. (I don't believe it will be thicker.) I can't believe it would cost over $75.00 to have a repairman replace it. Check mamiya.com site, call for est. I have been doing camera repairs for 50+ years and mirror replacement is usually very simple. If you have a good body, stick with it, a used replacement might end up costing you more and may not be as good as the one have. Buying into a new system is fine if you can justify it. Regards, Ken