dennisbrown

When I did formal portraits, the RB67 Pro was my mainstay. In 10 years, not a single failure of any type with the body, or the backs. Now, I did have some routine CLA's done, usually annually. The same for my M645 1000s. It ran like the Energizer bunny, and like the RB I did have CLA's done annually. Eventually the 645 became the backup to my "new" 645 Super. Like the 1000s, it ran with no problems at all for at least 10 years. Backs did not warp, and they were light tight when I sold my equipment. A lot of photographers I knew weren't so caring about their gear. While I didn't baby my gear, I did take care not to toss it around carelessly. The same went for my lights, studio gear, etc. I have a close friend who still uses a 645J, and it still runs well. I bought a used 645 Pro TL from a dealer in Japan, and it runs great. A couple of months ago, I bought a nice used RZ67 Pro, and it's also a winner. With the RZ, the only caveat is with the AE Prism Finder. It does eat batteries, but that's not a big issue.

Even with a 77mm filter ring, I'd be concerned about vignetting, especially at the wider zoom settings. I've used the "P" system on my Nikon 20mm f2.8, and could see the frame outline.

This web site is probably one of the best for repair of Pentax cameras. Home-Pentaxs

The battery is a 28L. I mistyped the model. I'll see about finding the S/O batteries. Most of the locals only carry the 28L, if and when you can find them. I also prefer the S/O. The AE Prism Finder is a battery hog, and really drains the power.

I own an RZ67 with the AE Finder (not the II). Earlier this week, I was testing some old expired film for function and metering, and I couldn't get any meter reading with the AE Finder. As late as three weeks ago it seemed to work fine. I removed the battery and put it on my Radio Shack volt/ohm meter, and it displayed 5.86 volts. I got a similar reading on my Klein (5.85v). Neither meter tests with a load. I found a new Duracell L28 in another bag, and installed it. Everything works fine now. Just wondering if these 6v systems are that sensitive when the voltage drops below the stated amount on the battery. I'm aware that the smaller the battery, the less capacity, and it seems like this is the case here.

I don't have but one in front of me, the 90mm f/3.5, and the serial number is on the front of the lens body, where the lens specs are engraved. There's a five-digit serial number counter-clockwise from the top orientation as you look down on the lens, apertures, D-O-F, etc. I looked on eBay, and most of the ones I saw had the serial number in the same place. The serial number won't be attached using a sticker. To my knowledge, they're all engraved.

I owned a 6x6 projector, and projected both 6x6 and 6x4.5 slides on it. There wasn't any real difference in image quality, even close up. My images were always mounted in Gepe glass mounts (anti-Newton glass type). Folks liked the larger images, and I always used a projection screen. At work, I had access to a huge motor-driven screen, and folks really enjoyed the images. My projector was an older single feed model with a 35mm adapter, but it was lost in a flood a number of years back. Once you made the leap from 35mm to 6x6 or 6x4.5, the ahhh!!! factor took over, and the small difference in the two medium formats was never noticed.

The 200 would be nearly ideal for head and shoulders portraits. A 2x factor over the normal (90mm) lens is an accepted standard. From a distortion perspective, you may get faces which aren't quite so flattering. Above 2x and you get a bit of flattening of noses, not always noticeable, but why risk it. Below 2x, and you risk a "wide angle" view of the face. A 150mm lens yields very nice waist-up portraits. My favorite RB67 lenses were the 180mm and 150mm for near portraiture.

On eBay the Pro S bodies go for around $100, and up. The original RB's were great, but the Pro S and SD are the way to go.

When I owned a Hassy and an A16 back, I used chart tape to mask the 6x4.5 dimensions on the focusing screen. The tape will come off without leaving residue. The tape comes in 1/8 and 1/16 widths. You may be able to mark off with a Sharpie.

If it's megapixels you desire for medium format, it would seem that the logical step is to use more than one sensor of smaller size to gain the linear dimensions you want. Right now, telescopes gain huge resolution by using segmented mirrors to get sufficient light transmission for astronomical purposes. No reason to believe a back couldn't be built to "seam" 4 sensors together as one. Now, the write speed, file size, and other obstacles need to be overcome, the least of which is the cost. But, as an exercise in optical resolution...

A number of years ago, I went "all digital, all the time", even unloading all my film cameras. A couple of years ago, I saw images posted that were scanned from a number of formats, and I got out my negatives and transparencies, deciding I wanted to do some more film shooting. There's a lot of excellent used equipment, so I bought a Mamiya 645 Pro TL from a dealer in Japan, and it was off to the races. Later, I bought an Epson V850 scanner, and started to scan and edit negatives and slides from my film years. I've scanned nearly 5000 negs and slides, and I'm shooting more film. I look at film just as a "different" medium than digital. And whatever floats my boat gets used that day. I'm a gear hog, so I've bought two 4x5 cameras, a Hasselblad, Mamiya RZ67, Mamiya C330s, and a slew of Nikons, Canons, Olympuses, and Pentaxes. Gets more fun every day.

No dog in this fight, but Detroit Craig's list has a Bronica S-2A for sale. $600, with two additional film inserts, and 75 and 50 mm Nikkor lenses. Nice looking piece of gear. I would give some thought, but I just bought a Hassy 500 C/M.

Here's a link to the Gitzo spare parts web site. They still have some parts for the G500. Gitzo G500 Spare Replacement Parts

If I may, let me recommend an older 3047 head for a Manfrotto 055. I've used them for years, and there are still a lot of good used ones out there. I know the hex-plates are obsolete, but I solved that with an adapter from a Canadian firm which takes the place of the hex plates, and has a Arca-Swiss plate. Hejnar Photo makes quite a few adapter plates. Hejnar Photo - Design Manufacture Delivered PS - I'm with a lot of folks on the ball head. They're hard to use, and I've been doing photography for over 50 years. I've always thought the 3-axis heads make the most sense.

Well stated!

Have you considered seeing an optometrist? If the +2.5 is too strong, maybe a lens could be ground to fit the existing 2.5 frame. Some of the larger shops can grind lenses of many shapes.

The 180 pictured has a Seikosha-S shutter. I believe that's one of the earlier 180 lenses, not compatible. The nomenclature states 18CM. The compatible lenses will be marked 180mm

Thanks for the link. It appears that the lenses with Seikosha shutters aren't compatible on the C33 and later. I'd only used the C33 and C330 models with "black" (Seiko shutter) lenses.

There's a very specific order for changing the lenses on the C33/C330's. Insure the focusing knob has been turned so the lens mount is completely retracted into the body. Be sure the rewind crank is turned so it's completely in the body. Be sure the dial on the left side of the body is set to "Unlock". Press the locking lever back and down to release the current lens. Once removed, the 180mm lens should set completely in place. Just reverse the locking lever, reset the dial to "Lock", and you should be in business.

A lot of folks, for good or not, use some type of protective filter over the front lens element (protective, UV, etc.). A lens shade, regardless of design, will also protect the front element. While shades have changed in design, they've also changed in attaching, and materials. The lens hood on my older Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is a type which clamps to the inside of the filter threads. There are older designs, built-in, and screw-in which are a bit dangerous. A good whack may dislodge the shade, but you're likely to damage the metal filter threads on the lens. It's a bit easier to unscrew the front filter ring assembly on the older designs, but good luck finding those today. You're also a bit less likely to affect the picture if there's a minor scuff or scratch on the front element. On today's lenses the filter threads are likely plastic, making them easier to disgorge a softer plastic lens hood, without damaging filter threads. That stated, never say never. ;) ;)

There is at least one maker of "tulip" type lens hoods in varying filter ring diameters. One such label is "Pro Master". They make hoods in sizes from 49mm to 77mm. I'm quite sure that those are generically designed, and packaged for a number of sellers.

I just bought a Mamiya 100-200mm zoom, which came in a Pelican 1450 case. It has the pluckable foam in it, but I just ordered a padded divider set for it. It seems just right for my D750 and a couple of lenses, and a few goodies. The padded dividers are a must for me. The specs for the two are almost identical.

The 150 APO covers 220mm, and the 135 covers 195mm. Here's the location of the data: Large Format Lenses

My first "professional" flash was a Strobonar 700. Honeywell advertised a guide number of 80 @ ASA 25 (f/4@20 feet). However, my initial tests using transparency films, was that it was off by at least one stop. I couldn't afford a flash meter at the time, but figured that transparency film couldn't be fooled by the printer. What you shot, was what you got, and I adjusted exposure to compensate, knowing that print film could be "fixed" by the printer. A couple of years later, I found a Wein WP500, which revealed the ugly truth, Honeywell was guilty of hyped advertising! :eek: :eek: Was I surprised? The Honeywells gave a nice warm light, which brides liked, despite the adage that pale skin was in.