jbcrane_gallery

<p>With apologies to the forum police I'm hoping this is a friendly crowd. I picked up my RZ last September and have been getting to know it since then, shooting a number of rolls os Velvia, Provia and HP5. I have not however been fortunate enough to shoot an image I wanted to see large-until about a week ago. This is the first image I've gone through the complete process with: metered, shot, processed and drum-scanned at maximum resolution. As a result I can say I'm more passionate about MF than ever before. The resolution and detail on this shot is just spectacular looking at it on my Apple 30" display. It's ENORMOUS, and I'll be getting my first MF lightjet of it soon. Just wanted to give a "rah rah" for MF and film in general.<br>

[Details: RZ67 Pro II w/ waist level finder, metered with my Sekonic L758DR, shot with the 65/4 L-A at 1/45 @ƒ32 with M-up double cable release on Provia 100. Drum scanned and processed in CS3.]<br>

Go Mamiya MF rigs. Rah. Thanks for not calling the forum cops on me ;-).</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want a camera that you can still use in 20-30 years, a high-quality 35mm film camera is likely to be more reliable. You may only be able to get B&W film out of somehwere in eastern Europe, but it will still work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely with the above re. film cameras. I just had a nice enlargement made of a shot from last September on Velvia 50 and it's absolutely incredible at 12 x 18. I had my digitals with me, too (D200/D300), but my F6 is the one that took this shot. There are no adequate words to describe the feelings I have for my old F bodys, from the F4S up through the F6. They'll always work, always be as bomb-proof as the day is long, always shoot in ultra cold weather... they're dependable, hearty, stout beasts that you can just count on... hey-I guess I found some words after all ;-).<br>

I didn't intend to turn this into a film thing. Really. But lack of longevity is one of the alarming things to me about the high-end rigs these days. I believe it's a huge unknown at this point-from an electronics point of view, to durability (drop that thing on the ground and give the processor a good scrambling...), drop it in the water and you'll kill it dead instantly, to file format compatibility... rubber grips coming off, planned obsolescence by the manufacturer... whereas you can pick up an F5 on ebay for $500 and shoot amazing photographs from now until the world runs out of silver...<br>

I digress.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. I think about some of the great photographers of our time and past times and always wonder how they became great. Was it just the right time for them in history? Were they naturally gifted enough that their vision just had to come out? Were they brilliant marketeers? Were they humble, quiet and unassuming yet their work spoke so loud it couldn't not be heard? Did they stink but have a great salesman? Were they important in fulfilling a crucial period in history that no one else could fill?<br>

So to answer my own question, I think both are important, but natural ability doesn't mean anything if you're lazy. I believe hard work, study, attention to detail, more hard work, good people skills, faith, drive, and above all else, heart-felt passion is what separates the the wheat from the chaffe. A little sprinkling of natural ability can be a real encouragement to get you started, too. <br>

Peace to all-JBCrane</p>

<p>So I was wondering what you all think the difference is, and which you'd rather have.<br>

How's that for short and pithy?<br>

Peace to all-JBCrane</p>

<p>Me again. Somehow this problem has fixed itself. Strange indeed. Another strange issue has happened since: while using the double cable release for M-up and shutter, no matter how gently I press on the plunger it released both mirror and shutter simultaneously. At first I figured I'd pressed to hard, but when I tried the exposure again intentionally pressing down as lightly as I could, it did the same thing. This was using the new (to me-but pre-owned) 65mm f4 LA and my first thought was something is defective with the lens. However, while out shooting yesterday, this problem also seems to have fixed itself. All this to ask: does anyone else experience random, quirky problems shooting the RZ? Mine was picked up pre-owned but at least from outward appearances it seemed in like new condition. Is this camera characterized by intermittent unusual behavior? Thanks for any thoughts.</p>

<p>I recently picked up another 120 back and am having an inconvenient issue with it: when I rotate from landscape to portrait, the Holder Lock Lever catches part-way on one of 3, rounded, recessing silver studs (this one at about 8 o'clock), tripping the Holder Lock Lever to unlock. The net result is, when it lands in Portrait position, the back wants to fall off.</p>

<p>This doesn't happen with my other back, so I'm thinking it's something indemic to this back, which I picked up on the cheap. I can't encourage the Holder Lock Lever to "click into position," or any snugger or tighter to avoid it unlocking in mid-rotation. Anyone have any thoughts about this? How to stop it short of not rotating the back, or holding the lever in place when I do rotate the back?</p>

<p>Many thanks in advance.<br>

John Crane</p>

<p>I'm a little surprised at some assertations that 6x7 is only negligibly better than 645. To me and my way of thinking <em>(this is subjective, I understand...)</em> a "negligible" difference might be considered the difference between, say, the 35mm scanned size vs. the D3X's 24.4mp <em>(let's leave quality of pixels & scan aside for now)</em>. In purely megapixel speak that would be ~20mp vs. 24.4mp. Numbers aside, it's visually on the graphic a small jump.<br>

<br /> ...but the jump from 645 to 6x7 visually speaking is substantial enough to note, in my humble opinion. I think a good question for the OP might be whether the jump from the 5D SLR to the 645 is going to dramatically increase image quality<em> (through increased size & image fidelity)</em> while attempting to take the same type of photos. Will the 645 handle well enough to allow this? Unknown to me.<br>

The difference in handling between the RZ and the DSLR is substantial and requires practice. The results are well worth it. Just my .02¢.<br>

<br /> Kind regards,<br /> John Crane</p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

Rather than percentages and such, I needed to view the facts in a easy to understand visual format: http://jbcrane.zenfolio.com/p572167072/e11d13485<br>

This graphic shows from 12.4mp up through 645 actual film size, then 67 actual film size. Of course, there are other aspects to consider when picking your format besides size. But for me and what I was trying to accomplish with MF, this visual made it abundantly clear to me. Hope someone else finds it useful.<br>

(the original images was shot digital with my Nikon D300)<br>

Kind regards,<br>

John Crane</p><div></div>

<p>I figured I saved enough money on the system I could spring for the real thing, and haven't been sorry. It's well-built, easy to use and does exactly what you'd expect it to do. My only gripe with it is that it's not a touch longer, and it doesn't curl up nice n' tight to fit in my cases like my other cable releases do. It seems too that I need to very careful with it sticking out of the lens and body like it does. If I were careless I'd bust off the shallow threads that screw into the lens barrel then I'd have a real mess.</p>

<p>Hello Todd,<br>

Having been in much the same position as you two months ago, I'll offer what I've learned thus far. I made the move to an RZ67 Pro II system in early October and now it's all I'll shoot for certain photographs. I still have and use my Nikon digital system, but for everything else I'll use my RZ.<br>

This system was picked up on ebay for a bit more than your stated budget but not much. It had a body, 120 back, Polaroid back 110/2.8 lens and case-all in like new condition (except the case). Surely a great way to start. Right off the bat, though, I needed a few more things to make the shots I wanted to take: A light meter (which I had), a cable release (bought the Mamiya double setup new for about $80), and a mounting plate for my Kirk ball head (about $60). I could have hand-held it or jerry-rigged something else using my Manfrotto, but wanted to get the most out of my testing so went for the Kirk plate to mount on my Gitzo 1325/Kirk BH-1 setup.<br>

That said, it does take some getting used to. I use the waist-level finder (no metering at all) and it took my brain a bit of training to see the reversed image on the ground glass properly. In the end, however it is an aid in composition: you're using both eyes to look down at the image in your ground glass, not squinting with one eye through a tiny prism. So you're actually experiencing the image how it will appear (I can't explain how the brain transposes the flopped image-it just seems to happen).<br>

Metering has also been a challenge. I use the Sekonic L758DR I picked up for my digital studio work so it's much more than is needed on a base level. But spot metering scenes and creating my own averages has forced me to slow way down and really look at a scene before shooting it. If DR exceeds what my Provia or Velvia can handle, I don't shoot it, or I wait until the light cooperates. This is exactly the disciplined approach I wanted to accomplish when making the move to MF film. At present my metering is done using the Sekonic, then values plugged into the D200/300, checking the results (histogram) before committing to film. This is obviously not a fast process but it will get faster the more I do it and develop that sense of what settings to use. To start out with there's always the "Sunny 16 Rule," too.<br>

So along with the other great advice you've received here, I'd throw this in too: give it an earnest try and push through those first idiosyncratic sessions as you adjust to a different way of working. The results will truly be worth it once the "big aha" comes. Have fun and best of luck with your journey. For me it has brought my work up to a new level.</p>

<p>Kind regards, John Crane</p>

<p>Hi Bruce,<br /> "I've been putting together an RZ kit and I must say these are GOOD times to be doing so."<br /> Isn't that the truth. Along those lines in a somewhat non-technical vein, I've been wondering about market trends lately and I'll see if I can roll it into an intelligible comment: In reading through the flickr's and various other on-line photo sharing spots it seems there has been somewhat of a re-invigoration of the film world-especially medium format. Folks excited about picking up their RZ, RB, Pentax or what have you...inexpensively and shooting MF film for the first time...<br /> Maybe I'm just actively looking more now that I'm into it and the interest has always been there (which I'm sure is the case). But there seems to be a growing discontent with the DSLR limitations. Something along the lines of, the bigger the image is, the more expensive the camera is (case in point, the newly announced Nikon D3X at $8K; and the Nikon tilt-shift PC lens I was considering buying in October for my DSLR gear was about $1,800), the more of the imperfections you can see - so now bigger, newer, higher-resolving (and heinously expensive) premium DSLR lenses are being designed and built to put a higher-resolved image on a larger, more expensive sensor... all the while the cost rising higher and higher... and there's an "emperor's new clothes" thing happening, where people are saying, "...wait a minute... you mean I can spend only hundreds of dollars and get an even better quality image by shooting film?..." and suddenly people's eyes are opening and are pointing at the digital emperor, realizing he's not what everyone wanted him to be.<br /> Maybe I'm just speaking for myself here but this is surely a cycle I've hit in this past year. While I regret not having jumped into MF earlier, I feel a bit like someone who profits from another's misfortune - buying all this amazing gear at such amazingly low prices because others have abandoned MF to chase the uncatchable digital darling emperor. Just an observation, and happy to enjoy it while it lasts.<br /> Kind regards, John</p>

<p>Hello Lawrence and thank you for the response. I bypassed the 75mm shift for now opting instead for the 65/4 reasoning I'd see more utility out of it right out of the gate. Plus, my G3 bellows and filters wouldn't fit that big, honkin 105mm filter thread. I found a good deal on a demo and it'll be here Friday-just in time for under the tree ;-).<br>

This will be only my second Mamiya lens, being new to the RZ system this October. I started with the 110/2.8 and my results confirm your assessment above: they're awesome quality glass. This 65/4 has a good reputation and I'm anxious to put it to work this winter. I haven't shot RB lenses on my RZ but I understand it's possible.<br>

It's nice to have entered the realm of "cheap glass" after having paid premium prices for all my DSLR glass for the past few years. A quality MF lens is typically running about as much as the slow, variable ap. consumer DSLR lenses these days, and I for one am glad (so is my wife!).<br>

Thanks again and kind regards, John</p>

<p>Hi All, this is my third thread trying to gather information about this 75mm shift lens, so sorry for the repitition-I've been awarded this or another wide as a "Christmas present" and am trying to do my research quickly:<br>

The debate is between this 75mm shift and the 65mm LA. I'm primarily getting it for landscape, though architectural and table top applications will I'm sure present themselves as well. My concern about the 75mm shift is that it won't focus to infinity (based on this thread), and the 105mm filter thread precludes use of my existing filters (including the G3 bellows). I'm not a converging vertical nut-just someone trying to maximize use out of as few lenses as possible w/o lugging around a lot more than I really need. Any thoughts are much appreciated. I know the 50 ULD is a great lens, but it's wider than I want for now.<br>

Kind regards, John Crane</p>

<p>Hi All, I'm considering purchasing this lens and after reading through the posts, am wondering if it focuses to infinity. Also wondering if the answer is no, is this why Mamiya didn't list "Landscape" in its applications for this lens on their web site (?).<br>

I'd be getting it primarily to shoot landscapes (with architectural applications as well) reasoning any shift functions would come in hand in shooting canyons/etc. But if it doesn't focus to infinity that seems to be a problem. Is it possible the non-infinity issues are confined to the adaptor? Many thanks in advance-new to the "shift thing" on the RZ.<br>

John Crane</p>

<p>Greetings All,<br>

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this lens-good or bad. How complicated it is to use, how the optics stack up to the 65mm/f4 (besides not being quite as wide)-whether it makes a good landscape lens or not. I know its focus is architectural, but it seems it would render a pleasing non-distorted landscape as well (?). Any thoughts appreciated, and thanks so much.<br>

John</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<center><img src="http://jbcrane.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p32858897-3.jpg"></center>