Almost Pulled the Trigger on a Mamiya RB67 Pro But...

[AlanKlein]

I shoot with a RB67. Mainly landscapes with Velvia 50 a chrome film. That lets me bracket +1 and -1 or whatever you want to do. The slight extra cost for film is worth it as it assures I got the exposure covered. If you shoot let's say Ektar 100 negative film, you have more play and probably don't need to bracket.

[danac]

Is there a highly skilled person in the USA who can work on RBs? I had Ken Oikawa in southern California refurbish both of my old Canon SLRs. He is retired from the Canon factory in Japan. My cameras are as good or better than new now. Someone of his caliber that works on Mamiyas would be a big incentive in my quest.

 

I'd like to keep things simple - no prism, no digital back and no batteries. The RB67 Pro S looks like the winner in this group as I suspected all along. A local friend has one of these. I'll borrow it whenever he replaces the light seals and this damnable virus situation is over. In the meantime, Deb and I are holed up in our well-prepared "fortress" for the duration. Y'all stay safe out there!

[antonroland]

Reviving an old thread? Just curious as to whether the OP did indeed pull the trigger on a RB67?

My MF film shooting started with a Mamiya m645J. I was forever wanting a waist level finder for it and lusted over a RB 67. 
 

At the same time I was wanting a Pentax 67 since I started out with a K-1000 and it just felt right. Then life took a few turns and I got on the digital bus…I recently picked up a 500C with a spare back and I love it but that RB67 still features…I am a hoarder and collector, OK?

[danac]

I found a new-in-box Mamiya 645E from a seller in Japan. It has a built in meter for aperture priority. I love it! It's the right size and weight. Since then I purchased a wide-angle and telephoto lens. The other day I bought a new-in-box 2x converter. All of the above are Mamiya-Secor optics. My negatives (2.7 times larger) and scans are significantly better than the 35mm ones I've developed over the years. I should have gone this route decades ago.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 1/4/2023 at 5:05 AM, danac said:

I found a new-in-box Mamiya 645E from a seller in Japan. It has a built in meter for aperture priority. I love it! It's the right size and weight. Since then I purchased a wide-angle and telephoto lens. The other day I bought a new-in-box 2x converter. All of the above are Mamiya-Secor optics. My negatives (2.7 times larger) and scans are significantly better than the 35mm ones I've developed over the years. I should have gone this route decades ago.

I sincerely hope you have better luck with that 645E than I've had with other plastic-jacketed Mamiya 645s. But at least there's no removable film back to crack or gap away from the body. 

2.7 times larger? Just to get things straight - the area increase is irrelevant. It's only the linear frame dimensions that affect grain, resolution, etc. Because IQ is directly proportional to print or viewing magnification, which in turn is measured one-dimensionally.

So the best you can say about 645 is that it's 42/24 = 1.75 times better than 35mm in the shorter dimension, or 56/36 = 1.556 times better taking the longer dimension. 

In other words you can get about 1.6 times more enlargement over a 35mm frame for the same perceived image quality and aspect ratio. Or conversely, the quality is about 1.6 times better for the same viewing size. 

What it's definitely not is 2.7 times better. You'd need to move to 1/4 plate for that. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[danac]

Fascinating Mr. Spock.🙂  At least the fun factor is significantly higher. I treat the camera very gently and store it lovingly so hopefully cracks will not spontaneously appear before the next ice age. If it cracks, then as the late great Kurt Vonnegut would have said: "So it goes."

[rodeo_joe1]

Sorry to jump on that '2.7 times bigger' thing, but this common misconception about frame area keeps getting repeated. Not only in film circles, but by advocates of so-called 'medium format' digital as well.

It's just frame-width versus frame-width or frame-height versus frame-height that count.

FWIW. I don't know about the 645E, but the two Mamiya Supers and Super TL that I own actually have a metal chassis under the plastic shell. But that doesn't stop the interchangeable film backs from working loose quite quickly, or the shutter solenoids jamming with regularity.

[AlanKlein]

On 1/8/2023 at 7:43 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

I sincerely hope you have better luck with that 645E than I've had with other plastic-jacketed Mamiya 645s. But at least there's no removable film back to crack or gap away from the body. 

2.7 times larger? Just to get things straight - the area increase is irrelevant. It's only the linear frame dimensions that affect grain, resolution, etc. Because IQ is directly proportional to print or viewing magnification, which in turn is measured one-dimensionally.

So the best you can say about 645 is that it's 42/24 = 1.75 times better than 35mm in the shorter dimension, or 56/36 = 1.556 times better taking the longer dimension. 

In other words you can get about 1.6 times more enlargement over a 35mm frame for the same perceived image quality and aspect ratio. Or conversely, the quality is about 1.6 times better for the same viewing size. 

What it's definitely not is 2.7 times better. You'd need to move to 1/4 plate for that. 

So what is 6x7 RB67 difference to full frame 35mm?

[danac]

9 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Sorry to jump on that '2.7 times bigger' thing, but this common misconception about frame area keeps getting repeated. Not only in film circles, but by advocates of so-called 'medium format' digital as well.

It's just frame-width versus frame-width or frame-height versus frame-height that count.

FWIW. I don't know about the 645E, but the two Mamiya Supers and Super TL that I own actually have a metal chassis under the plastic shell. But that doesn't stop the interchangeable film backs from working loose quite quickly, or the shutter solenoids jamming with regularity.

Got it. Thanks Joe.

[rodeo_joe1]

19 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

So what is 6x7 RB67 difference to full frame 35mm?

56/24 (=2.333) times better in the short direction, and 68/36 (=1.9) times better in the long direction.

With film bigger is always better, and IMO a less letterbox format looks nicer than Barnack's Bodge. But that's just my opinion. 

[jose_angel]

Agree, higher film formats are better because they simply offer shallower DoF, smoother gradation and higher resolution.

Obviously they have theirs drawbacks (size, weight, expense....) but from a creative point of view, I also think bigger is *usually* better.

Another thought; I like to consider all roll film based formats (120/220) the *same*, quality wise. I work with 6x6 and 6x7 (sometimes 6x9). All are the *same* format (56mm height) but with different widths suited to the task. It may sound stupid but once on the printing stage, all the benefits mentioned above are very close (6x7 vs 6x9) or identical (6x4,5 -portrait- and 6x6 or 6x6 and 6x7) when printed on a say, 8x10" sheet of paper.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by jose_angel

[c_watson1]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:46 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Sorry to jump on that '2.7 times bigger' thing, but this common misconception about frame area keeps getting repeated. Not only in film circles, but by advocates of so-called 'medium format' digital as well.

It's just frame-width versus frame-width or frame-height versus frame-height that count.

FWIW. I don't know about the 645E, but the two Mamiya Supers and Super TL that I own actually have a metal chassis under the plastic shell. But that doesn't stop the interchangeable film backs from working loose quite quickly, or the shutter solenoids jamming with regularity.

So tiresome...Yours did, mine didn't. Stow the tarbrush. Many are busted from years of hard use, not a baked-in defect.