Is a Mamiya RZ67 Pro 2 the 6x7 camera for me? Open to Opinions.

[j.lewis.photo]

I'm an art student and I currently own a Mamiya 645 Pro TL. I'm

thinking about upgrading to a Mamiya RZ67 Pro 2 primarily for the

larger negative size. I also like the half-stop shutter speed

increments, the rotatings back, the bellows focusing system and the

leaf-shutters. I'll admint that buying my Mamiya 645 was kind of an

impulse decision based on a really good deal that was offered to

me. I had used the camera a number of times before, but hadn't

really researched other camera systems. So now before I upgrade to

another mamiya, I would like to hear some arguments. I don't mind

taking my time while shooting, and I work mainly outdoors. I know

my way around the studio, but don't use it that much. And I will

require a AE finder.

 

I only heard a couple things about hasselblads, mainly that they're

tough, simple and mechanical, and have incredible optics. So how

will Hassi optics compare to the RZ's lenses. How will the RZ

optics compare to my standard 80mm 2.8 lens on my 645? I generally

print in 11x14, but I'm always seeking finer grained prints with

better detail.

 

I'm not a fan of the 6x6 negative size, and I'm wondering if even if

the hassies have better optics, will the Mamiya's larger rectangular

negative provide a print of equal sharpness?

 

In summation, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like

the hasselblad camera is a small, solid basic camera, offering the

absolute best in medium format optics and sharpness, while the RZ

Pro 2 is a slightly larger and heavier camera, with a larger

negative and some more versatile and convenient features(bellows

focusing and half-stop shutter increments), while still offering

stellar sharpness just shy of the Hassie's.

 

Being an art student who loves fine grain and sharp detail, but

wants to experience many types of photography on a budget, I'm

definately leaning towards the RZ67.

[pavelp]

RZ Pro 2 is 2,500 grams with 90mm lens, WLF and a film back. I do not know how much Hassey weights, but from what I've seen, the RZ is quite bigger (not just slightly). Make sure you'll get one in your hands before you make any decisions.

 

There's absolutely no doubt that the RZ will deliver, the question is whether you are willing to put up with the weight and size.

 

The optics will be comparable (I never saw a scientific comparison that would convince me that Zeiss lenses have a significant edge over Japanese coke-bottles). It's more about whether you'll like the lens signature (the overall feeling of the pictures, including bokeh). And then you the question of affordability of other-than-normal-focal-length lenses. With the RZ system, you can always take the cheap route of Sekor-C glass which is comparable to the newer glass but very cheap (say 50mm lens (ultrawide in 6x7) can be found for $250 in a decent shape).

 

One unmentioned advantage of RB/RZ cameras is their unique mirror dampening system. The mirror gradually slows down before it comes to full stop, so the impact is minimized (Mamiya calls it "a complete solution for mirror induced camera shake" which is stretching it a little, but not too much).

[peter_evans4]

You don't say what it is that you want to photograph. Also, I'm surprised that you don't find a modern and well-respected 6x4.5 to be sharp enough. Remember that sharpness can easily be limited by such factors as the enlarger lens or scanner that's used.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

If you really like fine grain and sharp detail, buy a 4x5. You can get a Shen Hao field camera and lens from Badger Graphics for about $1,200.

 

The jump from 645 to 67 won't be as dramatic an improvement as the jump from 35mm to 645.

 

Robert

[eric friedemann]

I've owned RBs and RZs and currently own Mamiya 7IIs. They are all fine cameras.

 

 

The key question is- what do you shoot? In the studio, an RZ will give you more choices of lenses and more precise framing with through-the-lens viewing. And you can easily use Polaroid backs to check lighting. In the field, RZs can be cumbersome and you will be mostly limited to shooting on a tripod.

 

 

I love the Mamiya 7IIs. I have the 43mm (21mm in 35mm format), the 65mm (32mm in 35mm format) and the 150mm (72mm in 35mm format). I don't need a wider choice of lenses, and the smaller size and weight of the 7IIs allows me to use them for event shooting, as well as more artistic hand-held work. Also, like the RBs/RZs, I love the leaf shutters on the M7IIs.

[dermot_conlan4]

Rent the RZ for the weekend...side by side with the Hassey it's huge. I went

from the 645Pro to the RZ to the Hassey and back to 645. Lost a lot of money

learned a few things but most important thing I learned the more you shoot the

better you get . It has very little to do with the gear, if you cannot make great

image's with the Pro I doubt the RZ will be any better. Use what you have and

rent what you want... and remember it's a buyers market right now in used MF.

[paul.droluk]

Assuming you are using fine grained films, I doubt you'll see much of a difference going to

6x7 making 11x14 prints. I used to own the 645 PRO TL (liked it), and now have the RZ II

(love it). It is a great camera, but heavy (so are the lenses). Forget hand held use... consider a

tripod and mirror lock-up mandatory. I use it almost exclusively in the studio where it really

shines, opting for a Horseman VH (6x9) or larger formats (612, 617 or 4x5) for demanding

field work.

[j.lewis.photo]

I photograph primarily outdoors, and do do a great deal of walking around

when I shoot. I would only use a tripod for shutter speeds below 1/30, and I

usually don't even bring one unless I plan on using slower shutter speeds.

 

As for the comment about 6x7 not being much larger than 6x4.5, I'll definately

appreciate the difference. An 11x14 enlargement from my 645 isn't that much

larger than an 8x10, but I can certainly tell the difference in grain and

sharpness when i print in black and white, which I use more than color. i

would use this camera in the studio, but not that often. I may use it more for

studio work in the future.

 

I also like the Mamiya 7ll, but the inability to change backs, cropping

difficulties and hot-shoe viewfinders are huge turn-offs to me.

 

The weight of this camera is what scares me, and I will certainly use one

before buying, but it has so many advantages (rotating back, large negative,

nice lenses, bellows focusing, half-stop shutter increments, leaf-shutter, fine

focusing nob, etc.) that it seems worth the extra weight.

[j.lewis.photo]

I should also add that the enlarger lens I currently use is my schools Nikon-EL

series 80mm. i'm not sure how high quality this lens is. Even if upgrading to a

larger format will leave me limited by the current enlarger I use, I plan on

scanning all of my negatives and probably switching to a home dark room in

the next year or two.

 

And I hope to get a 4x5 camera eventually, but certainly not as my only

camera. I would like a 6x7 and a 4x5 camera ideally.

[wayne_crider4]

If it was me, and of course we all have different opinions, I'd go straight to 4x5 and skip the 6x7. Shoot the 645 and a 4x5. If you really want 6x7 get a rollfilm back. As concerns the lenses, and at your print size, you generally have nothing to worry about whether Mamiya (buy newer) or Hasselblad.

[john_bellenis]

Here's a solid vote for the RZs...

 

I owned and used Hasselblads professionally for twelve years

(daily - a significant test period!) and had a large investment in

the system (3 500's, 6 lenses, multiple backs, polaroid backs,

tubes, etc)...

 

In 1992, driven crazy by the limitations of the system for my work

(I stress, for MY work - for some people they fit like gloves), I sold

the lot and bought Mamiya RZ's. I have since upgraded and now

own 3 RZ Pro IIs.

 

The Hasselblads had many limitations for me. My clients never

use square images, so it was effectively a large 645 camera

anyway - although when using 645 back different orientations

were virtually impossible, so it was really a 12 frame 645! The

one second maximum timed shutter speed was very limiting.

The need to remove backs for multiple exposures was frankly

insane. The mirror cut off with lenses over 150mm was

infuriating on a camera of that caliber. Tthe lens filter sizes were

all over the place - meaning I had to carry multiple filters sizes of

the same type. The "matched" inserts to their backs was clearly

a work around for poor quality control and consistency, very

irritating if assistants got them switched around inadvertently,

resulting in odd frame spacing... I could go on.... the jams

caused by by cackhanded assistants were easy to fix, but

inconvenient... the stiff focusing... .... I know some of these

issues were resolved on later models, but that is what I was

living with.

 

Anyway, rant over... I switched to the RZs and every one of these

problems disappeared overnight! I got a 6x7 transparency

instead of an effective 645, easy orientation changes, timed 8

second exposures, (now with 1/2 stops on the Pro IIs), quick

multiple exposure options, all 77mm filter sizes, easy and close

bellows focusing. Optically they are absolutely indistinguishable

from the Hassies, and I hand hold my RZ's frequently - shooting

lifestyle images all over the world - no problems there although I

am not a small guy...

 

I have used Mamiyas (RZ's and now RZ Pro II's) since 1992 and

have never looked back, never had a problem. My working life

has been a lot easier and my clients thrilled... I'm not sure you

can ask for much more than that!

 

Have fun with whatever you decide to do...

 

John - www.johnbellenis.com

[jean-louis llech]

Josh,<br>

A first observation : as you conclude by saying : <i>"I'm definitely leaning towards the RZ67"</i>. So, what is the problem, where is the question ? Buy one, and that's all.<br>

Just kidding. <p>

 

I owned several Mamiya cameras, a 645 1000S and later a RB67.<br>

All are well designed, well manufactured cameras. However, I found that the later 645 cameras had more plastics than the former ones.<br>

For me, what are the drawbacks of the RZ ?<br>

1- Too much electronics. (I would say the same for Rollei 600x series).<br>

2- A very heavy and bulky camera : a RZ67 Pro II, with an AE prism, a 120 back and the 110 mm weights 3280 gr. This is IMO very, <u>very heavy for outdoors photography</u>.<br>

And if you carry three or four lenses, two or three backs, a tripod and other accessories, you will easily have to carry 12 to 15 kg.<br>

3- The maximal speed is only 1/400s. This will be an important change with the 1/1000s of your 645 !<br>

4- The Mamiya RZ has a bellows focusing system, and that's not the same focusing method that the focusing ring of your 645 lenses. A RZ handheld is not as easy to use than a 645, and you'd better try it first before buying.<br>

The bellows system is one of my biggest reproachs to the RB/RZ : with a bellows focusing system, it might probably have been possible to design a tilt system for applying Scheimpflug rule.<br>

But the system doesn't allow it. You have to buy a very expensive tilt-shift system to do it. And with it, only two lenses can be focused on infinity : a 75 and a 180mm.<p>

 

Of course, the RZ is an excellent camera, I'll never say the contrary. The revolving back is a genial system for rectangular format.<br>

And the RZ 67 Pro II is the result of a long line of very successful cameras : the legendary mechanical RB, RB Pro S, RB Pro SD, and after them, the RZ and RZ Pro, and now the digital RZ. An impressive family !<br>

Of course, if you don't like the square format, you have only three main choices : Mamiya, Bronica or Pentax.<p>

 

But, as I appreciate the 6x6 format, I found a Rollei MF camera which has a focusing bellows with a tilt system, and so, depth of field can be easily controlled with <u>all lenses</u>.<br>

Also I can use Zeiss lenses, like Hasselblad's. The shutter speed is 1/1000s with a focal plane shutter. As the metering cells are in the body, not in the prism, I can use a simple viewing hood and still have a metering system. <br>

That's seems stupid to say that, but one of the advantages of the square format is that you don't have to turn the camera. Thus, you don't absolutely need a prism.<br>

Now, with the Blad's 500 series, you have to add a heavy prism to use a metering system. And with the 90 degrees prism, you cannot use a Polaroid back.<br>

Fortunately, they have a 45 degrees prism, which is IMO much better. But with Hasselblad 500 series, you cannot have both : a simple viewing hood and a metering system. For me that's a drawback.<br>

It was possible with Hasselblad 200 series, but they stopped producing them !<p>

 

Once again, it's only a personal opinion : I consider that Zeiss lenses are a bit over Mamiya Sekor ones. Of course, I agree that some Mamiya lenses, like its rangefinder wide angle lenses are really outstanding. But generally speaking, for sharpness, distortion, contrast, and color rendition, I prefer Zeiss lenses to Mamiya RZ lenses. Just try a Zeiss Distagon f4/50mm.<p>

 

All Mamiya 6x7 cameras are wonderful ones on a tripod in a studio, but IMO definitely not for outdoors photography.<br>

If you really intend to buy one for street photography, try it first !<br>

[j.lewis.photo]

On paper the RZ is an amazing camera and I think the only thing that could turn me off is experiencing the size and weight of it first hand. Well tonight I held an old RB67, and even after hearing so many people talk about its large size, I couldn't of imagined it being as big as it was. It was huge, and I think that would get to me eventually. I'm not saying that I won't buy it eventually, but I think I should perfect my shooting and processing techniques more with my 645 more, then consider upgrading.

 

I know that I do not fully recognize the full potential of my 645 on a regular basis. I find myself frequently looking at my 11x14 prints and desiring considerably finer grain, but I don't believe this now to be an equipment issue. This is because I look at some of my favorite prints that I've made, and they're all from my 645. They have grain so fine that I can't see it no matter how closely I examine the prints. And to my relatively inexperienced eye the sharpness and detail look very good.

 

So after a lot of research I think I've decided that a new camera is not what I need, but rather practice and experience.

Thanks for all the help.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Good thinking - take that camera budget and buy some more film! Try some slower films for tighter grain - Ilford FP4 is very nice.

 

Good luck,

Robert