RB67

<p>I have said some rather bad things about Mamiya in the past, on these pages. I had an abysmal record of problems and such with their products. The culmination was getting a new RZ about 8-9 years ago and hating it, mostly because of it's battery dependence. I decided that I still need a 6x7, recently. I have had a Pentax and didn't like it much, so I decided to try an RB. I got the Pro SD model with KL lenses. EXCELLENT! I am sorry for anything bad I have said about Mamiya. Just got out of the darkroom and there are a lot of really good prints from my first shoot with this camera--done jointly with a D700.. I would not rate the lenses as highly as those from Zeiss on a Hasselblad. I did try an older style film, Tri-X, to get a good range of greys, because my old RZ did not get good results with T-Max 100. The film is contrasty and the lens not subtle enough. But these lenses, probably the same as those on the RZ, were very good with Tri-X. The camera itself is just what I needed. It does not replace my Ebonys of course, but there are times when a view camera is not usable. In those situations I am glad to have this RB.</p>

<p>Very interesting Bruce. What didn't you like about the Pentax? Isn't Mamiya a much heavier camera and probably more suited for use with a tripod? Does your RB have a prism or a WLF? What lens did you use with it? Please let us know.</p>

<p>I always use a camera support these days, usually a tripod, at worst leaning against a wall. I did not get a prism because I like the camera low and the wlf is easier to see in that position. It is much larger than on a Hasselblad. The lenses I got were 65, 90 and 127. I have just used the 127 so far and it is better than I expected. I normally use Rodenstock, Schneider or Zeiss, and have rarely seen Japanese lenses that are as good for b&w, which is what I do. But this KL lens is very good. The Pentax lenses were not as good. I got my 67 Pentax new around 1983. The lenses were OK for the portrait business I had at the time, but these Mamiya lenses are better. Pentax upgraded the lenses later. The other problem with the Pentax is that it is hard to load. You fumble around with it in front of a customer and it makes you look like you do not know what you are doing. It is not easy to hand hold, but easier than a Mamiya.</p>

Bruce--

 

I'd be interested in when, where, and why you choose the RB67 over the D700.

 

--Marc

There are a few points of general consensus about Mamiya. Their glass was (is) uniformly good. Their 35mm SLRs were well specified but badly made and unreliable. And the RB67 is a nearly perfect camera for what it is and does. It is a fine field camera with or without a tripod, and was marketed from the outset as such. I guess it depends on whether you view it as a handy alternative to large format or a bulky alternative to 35mm.

<p>The Rb will always be my MF camera of choice. I owned one in the mid 70s while in the USAF, and fell in love with the big beast. Unfortunately I sold it about ten years later due to illness. I have been lucky enough in the past couple of years to find, and afford to get another, and a fleet of lenses that I could only dream of back in the day. In my opinion, the glass is probably the best I've ever used. Most of the photos that I have posted here were shot with my RB. The "Mornings Suck" shot was shot with the 127 lens. and a really cheap Vivitar flash, at about 12 inches from the kitten. The scan does not do it justice at all. Everyone who sees that photo is amazed at the detail. Another huge plus (to me) is the close focusing ability (due to the bellows) that these big girls have. With the prime lens, I can focus down to 9 inches, where most cameras with a helical focus are usually limited to about 2 feet. There's something great about filling that big 6x7 neg with something small like a teabag. I have the 50mm,127mm, and 250 mm lenses, and they are all tack sharp. Yes I almost always use a tripod, but I have hand held many times. And Bruce, try the RB with a roll or two of Plus-X, I find the contrast better than Tri-X, and the finer grain makes 16X20s look amazing. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did not get a prism because I like the camera low and the wlf is easier to see in that position.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't that make shooting in the vertical position difficult?<br>

<br /> -- <br /> Henry Posner<br /> <strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Henry, the RB has a rotating back... that's what the RB in RB67 stands for. No need to rotate the camera.</p>

<p>I have an RB67, and it is still an awesome camera today. I have a Canon DSLR, but I still prefer the images I make from the RB. It is such a simple machine, and I love how it does not require any batteries.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Les- Good question! I googled it, and actually found out that RB stands for Revolving Back, not Rotating Back... but as far as RZ is concerned, it says it was a name adopted from RB. So I guess it does not mean anything?</p>

 

<p>Regarding fumbling P67 loading: One has one's assistants do this with multiple bodies. Spencer Tunick has his assistant hand him what seems to be endless supply of loaded cameras when he shoots with his P67's.</p>

<p>If you like the RB, you'd love the Bronica GS1. The later lenses are admittedly slow, but are contrasty and sharp. A body with standard lens weighs about 4.5 lbs, compared to the 6 lbs an RB weighs with lens.</p>

<p>Glad you like the RZ. Had a C330 and C330F back in the 70's. While i sold them in the 80s. I liked them so much that now I have the RB. 645 Pro, C220 and Universal. Always thought that the the Mamiyas gave good quality for a good price. Maybe the "RZ" is a better name for the electronic version that "RE"!</p>

<p>Marc: I am using the D700 for a book (self published-Blurb) I am finishing up. I use digital for that and the computer. Otherwise film, preferably large format. I am sure you can get good prints from digital, but I prefer film, both for the look and the relative permanence and safer storage of the negative. <br>

Ed: Yes it is now my medium format of choice too. I also have a recent model Hasselblad and an old Rollei twin.<br>

Steve: I have wondered what Tunick uses and never got a good look at the camera. I cannot imagine why he does not use an 8x10 for those large prints. I like his work anyway.</p>

<p>Back in the day ... things that were mechanical were being transitioned into electronics and a common symbol for power in industrial controls is a lightning bolt. It was used a lot in marketing to imply a new, better, technologically wow-wee thing.<br /> I'd say the letter " Z " is as close as we get to a bolt of lightning.</p>

<p>Hence, " R Z ".<br /> Jim the old guy</p>

<p>The ZEE demystified LOL</p><div></div>

<p>There was a documentary about Tunick on PBS a few years ago. And it looked like the giant Pentax is the only camera he shoots. They showed him on location on several different continents, and the camera was always the same. As I recall he shot hand held all the time too.</p>

<p>I myself have thought of picking up an RB67. I've always thought them to be interesting and able cameras, but back in the day, they were just too expensive for me. Here in Japan it is now easy to find a complete RB67 kit with a lens, film back, and prism for under $200. It's nice to actually see some things about this hobby aren't that expensive, considering I just paid over $200 for a filter adapter for a Leica Summitar lens.</p>

<p>I love the RB67, I owned one with all the fixins a couple of years ago but sold it to finance some LF gear, well then i found myself wanting to do some portraiture, i tried to shoot LF portraits but my model was impatient <br />(imagine that), so i thought, i would like to find myself a portrait camera, the rb67 came to mind and all of a sudden out of no where one shows up in my mailbox, i use it only for portraits and love it. they are an awsome camera.</p>

<p>Do love my RB! It might not get used as much as my M645 and C220, though. The only reasons are that the Omega enlarger that was given to me. Only handles 6x6 and smaller. I shoot 99% B&W. Also, the lenses for the 645 Pro are cheaper than the RB's. Have the 127 KL and 180 non C lenses. Also, the bellows lens hood and the closeup tube No 2. Also, have 3 film backs. Planning on buying more gear for it.</p>

<p>Good luck with your RB Bruce. I used one for decades with nary a single problem. My current RZ is quite nice too but yes, it is battery dependant but it's not been a hate point for me. I carry a couple of spares. I will admit the battery door is a bit chintzy, though.</p>