Is it worth buying an RZ in 2007?

[spanky]

Thanks Marc (nice to see you spell your name correctly too lol).

"Break" was from the very first roll I shot with my then RZ67 purchased from KEH. A co-worker of mine was moonlighting as a waitress in a uh "gentlemans club" and I asked her if she would ask the dancers if any would be a model for my experimental shoot. The girl in the picture agreed and I went out there and shot the roll while she took a break. They were unposed shots and while I like this pose best, I wish I shot vertical but I wasn't used to the camera yet and didn't think. An 11x14 vertical cropped print is hanging in a local resturant. The owner wanted to buy it, but since my work is not for sale he gave me several free meals. Will photograph for food I say.

 

Other then that most of my prints are 8x10 since I don't do much with them except scan and upload here. I do occasional print some 16x20 but the trays at school aren't big enough and the enlargers at the rental darkroom aren't always aligned well so it's not too often I print this large.

Cheers,

Marc

[fotografz]

Marc Todd, you should get a few choice ones drum scanned and have a couple of huge prints

made. I saw an Annie Leibovitz show at the International Institute for Photography in NYC,

and she had HUGE mural sized prints done. WOW!

[spanky]

Hi Marc,

What exactly is a drum scan? Furthermore, where would I hang such a print in my shoe box sized studio apartment?

[fotografz]

Out the window ... LOL !

 

A drum scan is a high resolution scan of the neg, that can then be digitally printed on large

format ink-jet printers like used for some Gallery displays.

[terence_patrick]

To Tom, the original poster, buying an RZ will only be helpful at this point if you're looking to shoot a lot of film. For the average editorial shoot that I do, I go through about 20-25 rolls of 220 film, at a total cost of $23 per roll after film purchase, process, and contact sheet. I do my own scanning and that in itself takes quite a bit of time. I'm lucky in that my clients pay for my lab fees, but if you were to do your own processing, the costs add up very quickly. Now, I love my RZ and think it's a fabulous camera, but if you really wanted to jump into medium format and "future proof" yourself, there are better alternatives in the 645 world. Using a digital back on the RZ is possible, but one would have to deal with at least a 1.5x crop factor and with the 50mm being the widest non-fisheye lens, having a decent wide angle becomes an issue.

 

And just to clear up any misconceptions, while Annie Leibovitz was famous for using an RZ67, she has recently added the combination of a Hasselblad H2 w/ Phase One P45 back with the Canon 1DSMKII. She has taken a real liking to digital and it is pretty evident she is using it more in her recent editorial work in Vanity Fair and Vogue.

[tom_hayton]

Hi Terence

 

I would expect most of the film(s) to be paid for by clients...but since you mention it, what other alternatives in the 645 world would you (or anyone else) reccommend?

 

Incidentally thanks once again for all your feedback everyone- it's been very useful.

[richard_johnson4]

I have done lots of research the RZ is about the best you can get. Yes its big but who cares. As far as ebay and pricing they are going for around $1200 for camera 110 lens and back. Id kill to only spend $300 like was mentioned earlyer. Now quite reading and go buy one.

[fotografz]

Tom, if you intend continuing on with film. then the 645 format will not provide anywhere

near the image you'd get from the RZ's 6X7 neg.

 

If you do want to "future proof" yourself as mentioned, then 645 seems the way to go.

However that "future" is a synonym for "digital" ... and unless something dramatic happens

in the marketplace, it also means heart-stopping costs associated with MF digital backs of

the near 645 sized sensor type. To put it in perspective, the price of a used RZ is about the

same as some adapter plates to mount a "Universal" digital back on a camera : -)

[gene_e._mccluney]

The RB and RZ series cameras by Mamyia seem to be at their best when used in a studio

environment on a tripod. The placement of the controls and the way you handle the

camera just seems "right" on a tripod. While I have used my RB as a hand-held field

camera, I would not recommend it as the "best" choice for field work. On my RB at least,

there seems to be quite a "lag" between pushing the shutter release, and the actual firing

of the shutter, and I would attribute this to the sheer size of the mirror that has to move

out of the way. The shutter lag is longer than a Hasselblad, for example. This makes

shooting "candid" shots a gamble.

[carl_keeley]

To Tom,

you originaled noted the 'tininess of the 'canvas' being a real bug bear for you with the

dslr set up. Also, the highly competitive market that you operate in locally.

So there's two great points to answer.

 

Because I couldn't get the 'look' I was after using dslr gear. I recently grabbed a RZ Pro 2

and a bunch of fabulous Mamiya glass on Ebay. My potraits (beauty & fashion normally)

now look fabulous. Rich, deep, rounded and tactile. The images have a presence to them

that scream professional. I never got that with dslr gear - you know what i mean.

 

As for competitive edge. If you pull out the RZ gear your client/model know that you mean

business. It's just impressive. and it looks expensive. I don't get that respect with a dslr.

 

A couple other things of note is that preprocessing is actually faster with MF film i find.

The lab gets to do most of it whilst i'm shooting in the studio. I know that sounds odd, but

i used to process RAW files myself which is time lost shooting.

Post is also faster with MF film. Scanning takes time of course. But film is way more

forgiving with skin. MF digital or dslr digital with good glass can be too sharp for flattering

skin. Film has a 'creaminess' to it plus fine grain makes skin real. Thats why good

retouchers add grain to digi images. It prevents the plastic look you sometimes get.

Added to all of this is the ability to print huge - a bonus for profits.

 

The above was my thought process. I hope it helps yours. Each photographer will have a

different view on these things. I think it's called individuality - and don't we all need

that ;-)

[saltcod]

I scanned a neg from my RB67 yesterday at 2400 or 3200 (can't remember) and got a 36 inch wide print with no effort. I'm a complete digital evangelist, but when I saw that first scan and its subsequent digital print, I was totally blown away. I'm not ready for darkroom printing, but I am ready to make lots of BIG prints of my RB67 shots.