Is it worth buying an RZ in 2007?

[tom_hayton]

Hi there

 

I have been shooting commercial portraits professionally with a DSLR for about 3

years now.

 

The results please my clients, but I find the tininess of the ''canvas'' I am

woking on a real frustration, so I'm looking into MF, and the RZ Pro II in

particular.

 

I'm thinking the larger image size, greater resolution, increased cropping

options and psychological impact on a big shoot could make it worth the money

(photographers are two a penny in Malaysia where I work and they pretty much all

use 35mm or its digital equivalent).

 

The thing that makes me nervous is that I am buying old(er) equipment that could

turn into one big, heavy museum piece.

 

Is it really worth it? Or should I go for a Fuji S5 Pro?

 

Any help or suggestions most welcome.

 

Thanks

 

Tom

[brucecahn]

I had one and hated it. Everything depended on the battery. The lenses were very poor for B&W. Despite having a smaller negative, a Hasselblad will give you better prints. Even a Pentax 6x7 is better than the RZ.

[raczoliver]

Every time I look at the second hand RBs and their price, I think to myself that considering the price they go for, it is almost a crime not to buy one for somebody that works in a studio. I personally take most my pictures on the road, so I settled for the smaller Bronica SQ-A, but hey, if you don't carry it around everywhere, just glue it on your tripod in the studio, who cares if it is big?

 

I do not know about the RZ, I only know it is much more expensive than the RB. You might have better options, and I can't give you advice about which specific camera you should buy, but if your question is generally should you buy into a medium format system, I would say definitely. Your customers probably wouldn't get their pictures as fast, but MF is a joy to use, and the results from a 6x7 neg are just stunning. If you look at it as a tool that you are going to use, why care if it is outdated? You're not going to sell it and make money out of that, but I bet these cameras will work for longer than any DSLR you can buy for twice the price of a used good MF setup. And I personally also enjoy using these big beasts. It just gives a kind of satisfaction that I somehow don't get with the hi-tech equipment.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

I would certainly go for it, in your case. I am not sure what the other poster was talking about. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Any medium format, even a bloody holga produces stunning images.

 

I have owned two or three RZs in Japan where they are available very cheap. I just saw one in the store today, an RZ67 with a back and 110mm lens for $325 bucks. I sold them, basically because I was not getting a chance to use them and they are bloody heavy. But apart from the weight, they are flawless instruments, with superb optics, and ideal for portrait work.

 

Annie Leibowitz uses one, and she can afford anything on the planet, including blads, digital blads, Rolleiflexes, etc.

 

They are dirt cheap and at some point you can stick a digital back on an RZ. Plus as you say it would set you apart from all the other "me too" boys. I say go for it, especially as you have an excuse that you are using it professionally.

[david_altmann]

for me, the rz is with no doubt the best medium format camera. its cheap, simple and reliable. so if you need a 6x7 SLR there is no other option. even if we talk about 6x6 or 645 i would still choose the rz.

that said, if i use it the negs are scaned by a professional scanner operator on a drum scanner.

 

that said, no, dont buy one. if you dont NEED and really NEED the large image size id never use that camera. this camera is the necessary beast built around a 6x7 negative. if you can under any circumstances aviod it do it !

 

 

 

i know the problem of people telling me that they bought the camera i use for their little doughter. well add a big sunshade, add a poecket wizard on top of it and they wont recognise anymore. really those clients would be happy with a 3mpx image most of the time.

 

D.

[amorteguy]

I have DigiSLRs, Film SLRs, a Leica, and an RZ. They are absolutely intened for different purposes. I love the RZ. Yes, it is big, but I never use it on a tripod. I recently purchased the prism finder on ebay. but haven't been able to use it much. The price is very good on eBay, and I intend to get another body. The optics are fantastic. The only drawback I see is you can't be inconspicous with it.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Personally I am using a rolleicord, although it has a modified RZ screen in it. I love the Rolleicord, because it ways less than an empty Pepsi can, and it gets almost as much space on the negative as an RZ. But for portrait work, you have the perfect excuse to get one. Go for it.

[tom_hayton]

Hey thanks everyone, this has been helpful input.

 

I've come across a body with a 100-200mm lens, 110 film back, prism finder and a rock solid Manfrotto tripod for a pretty good price.

 

Does anyone have feedback on using this kind of setup?

[mike_earussi1]

MF zooms don't tend to be as sharp or contrasty as fixed lenses but will give you more flexability and will be faster in a studio since you won't need to move the camera as much to compose.

[akajohndoe]

I love my RZ Pro II. I do shoot mostly digital these days, but MF returns me to a purposeful and deliberate mode with I find immensely satisfying.

 

I've not used that lens, but do frequently use the 65mm, 110mm, and 180mm lenses.

[derek_stanton2]

"The lenses were very poor for B&W."

 

Poppycock. Simply ludicrous. I don't know whether to laugh or be angered by such

nonsense.

 

As for dependence on a battery...what can be said. Yes, it uses a battery. It's 2007. Big

deal. Tom didn't say he wanted a camera to scale the Himalayas with. He uses a 'battery

dependent' DSLR already. A person shooting commercial portraits can't keep a spare

battery on hand? How did so many fantastic photographers manage to make so many

images with this thing?

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Hey Tom, basically you can ignore Bruce's comments, they have no basis in reality. Just a

bunch of unsubstantiated tripe. As for lenses, I would avoid the zoom, and go directly for the

110 , or other excellent prime lens.

[wirehead]

So I picked up a used RB67 instead of a dSLR and have yet to regret it.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

I used an RB67 for pro work when large format was not required or unsuitable..it was a very good second best. For studio portrait work I doubt much would better negs from 6x7, whatever some Hassy users say..

 

cheers Steve.

[maclean]

I use an RB67 and am about to upgrade to the RZ which I've heard has much sharper lenses. I say go for it.

[thomas_hardy1]

I'll just add that the RZ is BIG, HEAVY and gives 10 exposures on 120 film, otherwise it is a

nice affordable system.

[john_cooper9]

If you want an electronically timed shutter go for the RZ, or as I have done, the Bronica GS1.

 

On the other hand, I just bought a totally mechanical Mamiya RB67 Pro S with 180mm lens

and 3@120 backs for about $300. I intend to use it as a portrait set up.

[fotografz]

"Response to Is it worth buying an RZ in 2007?"

 

Absolutely !!! ... if you have a use for it, which it sounds like you do.

 

I have had an RZ Pro-II for years now, and not once regretted it ... except I wish I were

buying it now when the stuff is so much less inexpensive.

 

IMO Dereck's response is being kind, the B&W from this camera will knock your F'in socks

off. (Can't be all that bad since Annie Lebowitz made some pretty decent pics with one).

Even 11X14 portraits will have your jaw dropping.

 

The battery lasts forever, so you just need to have a spare around just in case you forget

that it is battery dependent : -).

 

The lens range and diversity is staggering.

 

For portraits there's an interesting soft type 180mm VSF that produces degrees of

diffusion by unscrewing the front and placing one of 3 different diffraction inserts inside

the lens ... NOTHING you can do in PhotoShop can duplicate this look. Very cool.

 

There's a tilt/shift adapter to use with the short-barrel lenses that lets you control areas of

focus... no where to the degree of a view-camera, but helpful when using a macro lens

and even useful for select focus effects with portraits.

 

The 210 APO is as razor sharp as anything out there costing 3X as much.

Remember, these lenses are focused by the body bellows so there's less compromises to

allow for focusing elements inside the lenses themselves.

 

Finally, it accepts digital backs and the back rotates on camera like a Rollie, so it doesn't

require removing and repositioning the back for portrait orientation like required with a

Hasselblad (which I also own and use). I use the RZ in studio with a Leaf Aptus 75 ... which

is an arm & leg in price, but shows that later if film becomes less viable, there will be used

digital backs available. For digital applications I would only wish for a wide lens like the

43mm they were working on in the past. 50.. is as wide as they go without resorting to

fisheye.

 

An under-rated studio camera IMHO. Here's the goodies I mentioned above.<div></div>

[barry_sanford]

I have to agree with Marc. The RZ is ubiquitous and the best deal going in MF film. I've also

used the RZ with an Aptus 22 back with great results. I have

two RZ bodies and would never get rid of them. The 180 VSF lens is wonderful if used

correctly (takes a little practice and requires a rangefinder split screen for accurate focus).

 

I once thought it was too big and bulky, but after shooting a Fuji GX680III for a while, the RZ

seems like miniature, LOL!! You can't go wrong with this camera, but remember it's all

manual with no auto-anything.

[jason_wright2]

I love the RZ and RB. Both are excellent cameras, especially for portraits. The 6x7 format is perfect for 8x10 enlargement. Yes, better than 645.

[spanky]

I've been using an RZ67 ProII for a couple years now. I use it hand held 99% of the time for street and documentary style photography. Check out my gallery it's all RZ67 ProII. I do a fair amount of 16x20 prints using slow and medium speed B&W films and they look stunning. Some people thought they were from a 4x5 camera. And yes, you stand apart from the digi crowd. Once during an illegal immigration rally a couple of photographers from the newspapers came over to me and said "Now that's a camera".

[fotografz]

Marc Todd, I love it, you treat the RZ like a Leica M ... LOL.

 

I personally love the image you titled "Break".

 

I'm sure the total effect is lost with tiny web uploads. How large do you print your street

stuff?

[tom_hayton]

Well, thanks everyone. I've been very impressed with the number and detail of the responses and it has definitely helped.

 

Now the next thing I' like to know is about anyone's experiences of using the RZ with a digital back. Some people say it's a bit fiddly. Why is that?

[barry_sanford]

Most all digital back makers have an RZ attachment plate. Since neither the original RZ nor

RZ

Pro-II have the Mamiya MSC interface, they can only sync with a digital back through a sync

chord, and the back doesn't capture any camera metadata. The newer RZ Pro-IID has the

MSC electronics and interface to allow for tighter integration with Mamiya compatible digital

backs. While these backs are available (Leaf, PhaseOne, etc.), an MSC compatible RZ

attachment plate is not available in the U.S. (I do understand it's in Europe as Mamiya part

number 524-320. Can anyone confirm this?).

[tony_clark]

I love the RZ system! I sold mine and went all digital, but swear that I'm buying another and

add a digital back. The RZ with prism and L grip rocks and the proof is in the transparency.

My second choice would be a Contax 645 which was recently discontinued, but that is a solid

performer. I'd add the grip for the vertical shutter and AA batteries.