RZ67 PRO II versus Pentax 67 II

[bill_cram]

I know you must get sick of hearing this sort of question but please, hear me out !

 

Like many photographers looking to upgrade from 35mm to medium format, I've done loads of research in an effort to make a purchase choice. I want the 6x7 format and have narrowed the field down to the new MK II Pentak 67 and the Mamiya RZ67 PRO II. My primary interest is landscape photography.

 

I'd all but made my mind up to go for the big Pentax when I came across a 1992 report in a back issues listing of a popular UK photography magazine. What disturbed me were the comments made about the Pentax 'standard issue' 105mm lens - the narrative went as follows:

 

"One of the adavntages of using medium format cameras is meant to be that the quality of the lenses is superb. From my pictures, I had little evidence of this - they were fine but not exceptional ...... What was worse was that there was evidence of longitudinal chromatic error"

 

I know that the test ws carried out on the 'old' MK I kit but am worried that the same applies to the lens supplied with the MK II. Also, do other lenses in the Pentax suffer from the same drawbacks??

 

Were the report's findings ill founded or, if true, are the effects really noticable when compared with what I understand are the optically excellent lenses in the Mamiya RZ67 range ?

 

Please help !!

[andrew_schank]

Bill, I could have saved myself a lot of time and money if I would have went out and rented a few potential systems first and tried them out in the field. I know here in the San Francisco area, both those cameras are readily available for rent. Either that or buy used from a source that has a hassel free 2 week return policy, like KEH. Shoot some tests and see if it does it for you.

 

You must have a stronger back than me, because I'd be looking at a Mamiya 7 for landscapes, and there the lens quality is at the top of the charts. Even the thought of lugging a bag full of RZ67 or Pentax 67 equipment out in the field makes my shoulder sore.

[dan_brown1]

I guess this is going to seem like a 'vote' for my brand, but, have you considered the Mamiya 7? The 43mm and 50mm lens are both stunning in terms of sharpness, color saturation, and lack of distortion. And, the lack of a mirror box and accurate leaf shutters make the 7 virtually vibration fee. To top it off, the used market is pretty well developed, so you can get this gear at prices substantially below B&H 'street' prices. Only downside is that it isn't an SLR, so special filters aren't so easy to use.

[steve_rasmussen]

The 105mm Pentax/Takumar have had mixed reviews over the years in what I feel is a quality assurance problem. My 12 year old Takumar is really a nice lens compared to what others have said about theirs. I feel that the lower production rate 105s( build back when MF was not all that popular) were better than the recent ones. I have never heard of any user complaining about color fringing on a 105 though. My advice is to stick with the proven winners in the Pentax lineup. These are the 45, 55, 75, 135, 150, 400ED, 400 Takumar and 800ED. I would suggest getting the 150 f/2.8 and not even bother with the 105. The 150 is no longer made but is sharp from wide open to the smallest aperture.

[trace_dibble2]

Were you to investigate all the P67 Takumar test reports and threads that have made their way onto the web, you'd find that they're all over the map--everything from gushing praise to abject damnation. Opinions are like...well, let's just say that Andrew's point (rent, observe, formulate your own answer) is well taken.

 

The problem that you've taken on in moving from 35mm to medium format is that you've entered the steep portion of the cost vs. image quality J-curve. From this point forward, every infinitesimal increment of resolving power gained by virtue of a lens choice--whether real or imagined--will cost you dearly. You might, for instance, commit to the RZ67, only to be tortured by the smug assertions of a Hasselblad owner as to the superiority of his Zeiss lenses, a distinction easily proven by examining 40" X 60" prints side-by-side with a 10X loupe.

 

Having said that, I'd point out that the reason why I own a P67 with a prism finder and five lenses is that a comparably equipped RZ67 would have cost me easily twice as much. For what it's worth--and for reasons not neccesarily associated with glass--were cost no object, I'd have not hesitated to opt for the RZ67.

[levin_haegele1]

hello, bill...both cameras are fine cameras. i own the RZ67 and it's a fabulous camera. i understand that optics are important, but in my opinion, so is the feel of the camera. for instance, you cannot easily hand-hold the RZ67. the pentax, on the other hand, is basically a beefy 35mm which can be hand-held. renting the cameras would allow you to see which one feels better and running some rolls through each camera will also allow you to see if YOU are happy with the optics. all the best in your decision...

[anthony_harrison]

Since you ask about these two cameras specifically I'll confine myself to them, and not mention such things as the Mamiya 7.

I've owned both, and sold pictures taken on both. In general (while accepting expert comments on the possibility of erratic quality control) you don't need to worry about lens quality with either marque. But what I found with the P67 was the often-commented-on inherent shutter vibration which even with use of a heavy tripod I found always liable to induce unsharpness. It destroyed my confidence in the camera.

The RZ2 I use currently is a delight, easy to use, well built, versatile (the rotating back is excellent after the hassle of flopping the big Pentax on its side for verticals) and with great lenses. The integral leaf shutters in the lenses mean you can shoot mirror-up pics with zero vibration - I do this all the time. It's bulky sure, but a modest outfit fits into a medium-sized bag alright and doesn't weigh a ton.

Recommended unreservedly.

[patrick_drennon]

I don't think you'll EVER find this forum sick of questions such as this. I am a P67 user (both original and the II) so I know the camera and its strengths and weaknesses. If I thought whatever camera I bought would spend all of its time on a tripod and money was not a controlling issue I would be hard pressed to decide between the two systems. The decision would not be based on optics (I guess I was blessed with one of the GOOD 105's). The RZ is superior in close-up and in on-tripod verticles. The P67 is faster handling (until a film change is required where it's slower). P67 has a 600 f/4 available, no such animal or near eqivalent for the RZ. I've used an RB and really liked it, but I was unable to produce results superior to the P67 which I like better, but I handhold it alot of the time (I know it's criminal but I've gotten some great shots handheld). I agree with the previous poster's comments, the RZ IS handholdable, but not for long. Best advice is like everyone else, try out both, they are so different that one will work and feel superior FOR YOU.

[sam_w]

I debated the two cameras and went with the RZ. I rented it from a local shop and ran it through one key test: can I get a sharp portrait of a baby crawling around the house (i.e. can I shoot hand-held). In my case, the result was yes (big arms, I guess). Also, the rotating back was the final decision factor because I take a majority of shots with vertical composition. This is harder (on or off a tripod) with the Pentax.

 

Bottom line: (1) Rent. (2) Compare *unique* features of each camera.

 

Don't make any decision based solely on the advice of others.

[joel_sampson]

For Landscape the Pentax is a happy choice. I do urban landscape with a P67. I did a lot of research and got a lot of on-line help.

 

The weakness of Pentax is flash sync, only 1/30. I never use flash so it's not a problem. Perhaps lack of interchangable backs. I shoot color negative film and do not need a Polaroid back. If I do, I shoot 4x5 or could use my Polaroid 195.

 

The Pentax lenses are very good. I have the 35 fisheye, 45, 90, and 165. Since they do not have a shutter, they are a stop faster than most other MF lenses and quite a bit less expensive. I print 20x24 or 30x40 with an occassional 16x20. They seem to hold up very well.

 

joel Sampson / Dallas

www.joelsampson.com

[mike_ditz]

Bill,

When I was working at rental house here in LA we rented RZ, P67 and Hassy. The vast majority of rentals were the RZ cameras. The P67 were not as popular and they seemed to be breaking alot. Mostly winding mechanism and mirror failure. when clients shot with the P67 they would rent 5 or 6 bodies, 3 to shoot with and 3 for back up.

Obviously rental equipment leads a harder life than owned equipment but it is something to consider. I think they beefed up the gears in the 67II but time will tell. As far as lenses go I prefer the Mamiya RZ, which also has APO lenses if you are really concerned about achromatic aberations.

The Mamiya 7 is also something to look at if you don't want an SLR, revolving back, etc. But I believe there are a limited number of lenses available at this time.

[milton_barrocas]

You can say the same about all medium format systems. The lenses are inferior to 35mm lenses. Think about it, 35mm lenses are sold by the millions and hence the lens makers can pour R&D money into these lenses and manufacturing facilities. As a result 35mm lenses of the same price will on average be superior and include the latest tech like IS (image stabilization) and aspheric elements to name a few. Most Medium format lenses are ancient designs and the makers just keep updating them slowly depending on sales. Also remember that medium format lens design is much more difficult because the image circle is bigger and hence lens elements are bigger and more difficult to grind accurately (do you ever wonder why a 300mmF2.8 lens costs $3K+? what about the mamiya 645 300F2.8 at $12K+. Personally I think the medium format quality is due to the lack of film grain than anything else. A 6X7 slide will show half the grain of a 35mm regardless of which system you use. With the new Provia F though, a 35mm slide will give you almost the same grain as a 6X7 with the old Provia. Also a 6x7 slide is much more usable on a light table; when using a light table 35mm is unacceptable, 6x7 is bare minimum, 4x5 is excellent, 8x10 is intoxicating, 20X24 will make you gasp.

As far as P67 vs RZ67 these two cameras are entirely different beasts. The P67 is a jack of all trades camera, not ideal for anything but it can do everything. RZ67 is more specialized for studio work. This is what you should base your decision on, not some article that god knows who wrote god knows where about medium format lenses. Do yourself a favor, buy a used RB and some used lenses, they are a real bargain and you can always sell them later and buy a P67 if you change your mind.

[peter_kaskan]

Hi Ladies and Gents,

 

I know this is an old thread, but I just read it, as I'm hunting for info on the Mamiya RZ lenses. Maybe no one will even catch this but I had to respond!

 

MILTON BARROCAS writes...

"You can say the same about all medium format systems. The lenses are inferior to 35mm lenses. Think about it, 35mm lenses are sold by the millions and hence the lens makers can pour R&D money into these lenses and manufacturing facilities."

 

What a crock of s#!t! Have you ever shot through a MF system?! Print a 16 x 20 from an RZ pro or P67, and then try that with your best Nikon or Cannon system - the difference is obvious!

 

Bill, did you buy a MF system? About 6 months ago, I traded in my junky 35 mm lenses (!!!) and bought a Mamiya RZ Pro. I have never seen such beautiful clarity and sharpness - there is nothing like it in the 35mm world. I don't like the pentax 67 system, though I have never owned one - it seems more of a dinosaur than the RZ systems.

 

"RZ67 is more specialized for studio work."

That may be, but I carry mine around the streets of Tokyo with two/three lenses, two backs, a full size flash unit and two meters. Granted my feet hurt like hell by sunset, and I have probably gained some muscle mass, and lost some weight!

 

Ouch,

 

Pete Kaskan