Mamiya RZ67 + Digital Back

[benjamin_kim1]

<p>Hi I'm curious about using Mamiya RZ67 pro II film camera with the recent digital back. What do you think of using Mamiya 67 + recent digital back for commercial and studio uses? I know that Mamiya RZ67 can use the digital back but I don't know if this camera can use the most recent digital back. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I fear the RZ might not be the best choice. AFAIK most backs aren't even 6x4.5cm, the more crop factor you add the clumsier the gear and WA photography becomes more limited.<br>

I'd try to get away with less. If I had to go DMF I'd get sample files of all 4 lenses planned with the kit and all further available info, preferably with proof why a Nikon Sony whatever doesn't cut the cake too. <br>

14 years ago digital back sales reps drove potential customers to existing ones and paid lunch too.</p>

[lubos_soltes]

<p>AFAIK the RZ is compatible with a LOT of digital backs up to the latest ones. Even H and V backs can be used with proper adapter plates. However as Jochen already stated, the sensor real estate does not cover the frame so you'll have to adapt (either by changing distance or buying a new set of lenses) to the change of FOV.</p>

<p>Also some of the backs require a dual cable release as the back is not woken up by the camera shutter press ...</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>What do you think of using Mamiya 67 + recent digital back for commercial and studio uses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that if you can afford a recent digital back, you can also afford a camera body which is generally better suited to it - one from the Mamiya 645AFD/DF line. What in particular attracts you to the RZ over one of those? I mean I can think of a couple of reasons, but I wonder if your considerations match mine?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AFAIK most backs aren't even 6x4.5cm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, "most" is actually "all"!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also some of the backs require a dual cable release as the back is not woken up by the camera shutter press ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as the back is in Mamiya 645AFD fitting, the camera is an RZ ProII<strong>D</strong>, and the interface plate is a HX701, then the wakeup signal is sent electronically straight from the camera. The RZ Pro and ProII can't do that.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>I know this might be too late to perhaps be of use to the original poster, but it may be helpful to anyone researching the topic, so I'll pitch in my two cents.</p>

<p>I'm now shooting my RZ67 Pro II digitally--and loving it. I acquired a decade-old Sinarback 54M at a great price, and even though it's "only" 22 megapixels, it's 22 *fantastic* MP.</p>

<p>Here's a full-resolution sample--which has been sharpened for print so it may appear over sharpened on screen, but it will indicate the amount of detail present when used with the 180 W-N lens:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg">Portrait of Ade</a></p>

<p>The back has to be shot tethered, but I'm using it in the studio nearly always, so that's not a real problem. And it's old enough that you have to use Sinar's proprietary capture software, it won't work with Lightroom or Capture One (but Sinar's software is quite good, and will run on Yosemite--and it captures as DNG files, so all is well and you *can* use any of the major apps to process the files in post). It does need a wakeup cable connected to the sync terminal on the lens, but with the RZ I just use a radio trigger for my strobes in the hot shoe, so again no problem there. The sensor is 36mm x 48mm, therefore precisely double the size of a full-frame 35mm DSLR.</p>

<p>Why would someone use an RZ67 instead of a 645AFD or, say, a Nikon D810? Especially with an older back like mine?</p>

<p>First of all, it does slow you down somewhat--although you can fire a frame every 2-3 seconds--and you had *better* make sure that you have focused accurately. And because of the two cables hanging out of the back (the wakeup cable and the Firewire tether cable) I almost always shoot it on a tripod. So it's more the careful kind of MF photography that some of us like better for the discipline--absent the irritating necessity to reload film every 10 shots.</p>

<p>It has the rotating back adapter, so no need to rotate the camera to switch between landscape and portrait mode. The larger sensor real estate than on a DSLR gives more of a medium-format character to the photos.</p>

<p>Finally, and most importantly, price. I'd never be able to touch one of the newest backs or camera/back combinations. However, I picked up an RZ67 Pro II kit with two lenses--and have added more since, quite cheaply--for the equivalent of $600 (£400 to be exact) and the back cost me less than $1500 (£990). So for less than a D810 would cost without a lens, I'm shooting stuff that has superb image quality--and the fact that it *is* so different from a DSLR is fascinating to my clients. So it's been well worth it. A D810 would of course be a whole lot more versatile, and I'll probably get one (or whatever comes next) at some point. But for what it cost me, my setup has been quite worth it. Oh, and the RZ67 can do one thing the D810 definitely <em>can't</em> do: I can always slap a film back on the camera and shoot analog--I still love shooting/printing black and white--along with my digital!</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Bernard: thanks for that most informative post. I've wondered about old the Sinarbacks. The 54M is the type where there's an internal dewpoint-controlled Peltier cooler and the rear plate is a stylishly gridded heat-sink. That should make it suitable for long exposures, but is there a hard limit of 32 seconds? Does the software allow you to run longer exposures on 'B'?</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>I can't swear to it, and as I'm currently in the U.S. at the moment and the back is in London I can't check it, but I do believe 32 seconds is the longest exposure possible. </p>

<p>What happens in Sinar CaptureShop 6.1.2 is that there is a slider to choose the exposure time that the back records. This may not necessarily match the shutter speed on the camera--the only thing is that the exposure set in software must be equal to or longer than the actual shutter speed, in order to record everything that comes through the lens while the shutter is open.</p>

<p>So, yes, I *think* the longest exposure you can set in the software is 32 seconds. Wish I could confirm, and I'll try to remember to do so when I get back to the UK in a few weeks.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>So, yes, I *think* the longest exposure you can set in the software is 32 seconds. Wish I could confirm, and I'll try to remember to do so when I get back to the UK in a few weeks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Bernard. Looking forward to that .</p>