Mamiya RB67 vs. Hasselblad 500CM - all things being equal?
Kroppe
Hello -
I am at the cusp of a decision to buy RB67 vs. 500CM. My budget is
fixed, but sufficient enough to pick up a body, lens and back for either
of these two systems.
I would like anyone's comments on my assumptions:
1. for the same price for body, normal lens and back, I will get
a better condition RB67 than I will a 500CM. This is due to
the brand image of the Hassy.
2. because of 1. above, the Hassy will likely require maintenance
sooner than the RB, therefore the short term cost of ownership
will be higher. I'm thinking of back and body repairs/adjustments.
3. Sekor vs. Zeiss optics quality is similar, especially up to
20 x 24 enlargements.
4. It's nice to have a little more negative with the RB.
5. Both systems are replete with lenses and accessories. Not that I
will be sinking kilodollars into lenses soon.
My conclusion is that I will be better off with the RB67, because I will
get a more reliable (due to age/condition) system with the RB67 and also
will get a little more negative.
Downsides to the RB67 are lack of Hassy brand image and less comfortable
handling (due to size), but both of these downsides are not big issues
to me.
I would really appreciate some opinions on my reasoning from both sides
of the camp.
Thanks in advance.
B.J. Kroppe
near Detroit, MI
SPECTRUM
I don't know of one manufacturer that makes square paper.
Square TV tubes. Square magazines. So why even consider shooting
square ? For CD covers ?
Regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Douglas - Who owns an RB 67 ProSD
Spectrum Photographic Inc. - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Website:Portraiture, Wedding Photography, Darkroom Info.,
World Field Photographers Association, FAQ's & More!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 12:53:42 -0500, Kroppe <kro...@mich.com>
wrote:
Timothy Schooler
>My conclusion is that I will be better off with the RB67, because I will
>get a more reliable (due to age/condition) system with the RB67 and also
>will get a little more negative.
>Downsides to the RB67 are lack of Hassy brand image and less comfortable
>handling (due to size), but both of these downsides are not big issues
>to me.
>I would really appreciate some opinions on my reasoning from both sides
>of the camp.
I have owned an RB, and I have a 500CM right now. If I had a choice,
I would own both. If I had only one, my preference is the Hasselblad, but
probably not for any of the reasons you've mentioned. Each has strengths
and weaknesses. You're much better off analyzing what _YOUR_ needs are
and buying what best fits. Sounds like you've thought this through, and
made your decision. Don't let anyone sway you based on persdonal
preferences.
--
Regards,
Timothy Schooler
Soccer Images at:
http://www.amcphoto.com/tschooler.htm
Timothy Schooler
In article <35228df0...@news.cybercomm.net>, SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com
blurted out
>I don't know of one manufacturer that makes square paper.
>Square TV tubes. Square magazines. So why even consider shooting
>square ? For CD covers ?
This is the kind of advice he needs to avoid. John, are you sure
this is you ? :-)
Paper is irrelevant. He should buy whatever best suits his needs
whether it is square, rectangular or round.
>
>Regards,
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> John S. Douglas - Who owns an RB 67 ProSD
>Spectrum Photographic Inc. - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
>Website:Portraiture, Wedding Photography, Darkroom Info.,
> World Field Photographers Association, FAQ's & More!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>
>
>On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 12:53:42 -0500, Kroppe <kro...@mich.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I would really appreciate some opinions on my reasoning from both sides
>>of the camp.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>B.J. Kroppe
>>near Detroit, MI
>
--
Dave Munroe
>I am at the cusp of a decision to buy RB67 vs. 500CM.
There is no substitute for trying the cameras out yourself and
seeing which one meets your needs. I have Hasselblads, but am
also fond of Mamiyas. The cameras are so different, you really
need to use them to see which one you like.
>I would like anyone's comments on my assumptions:
>
>1. for the same price for body, normal lens and back, I will get
> a better condition RB67 than I will a 500CM. This is due to
> the brand image of the Hassy.
Only partly so. Part of it is that Hasselblad has interchangeability
over a span of 40 years for lenses, backs, finders, and bodies and
that has kept their value up because they don't become obsolete or limited
to a particular model.
>4. It's nice to have a little more negative with the RB.
Yep. And the revolving back.
>My conclusion is that I will be better off with the RB67, because I will
>get a more reliable (due to age/condition) system with the RB67 and also
>will get a little more negative.
All things being equal, reliability is more dependent on how the equipment
was cared for than mere age of equipment.
>Downsides to the RB67 are lack of Hassy brand image
Don't worry what others (clients?) think about your camera. Unless you
show up with an Instamatic, they have no justifiable reason to critique
your choice of equipment.
-Dave
SPECTRUM
Personally I think the RB is a much more impressive
camera just looking at its size !
The Hassy's are beautiful but the RB's are huge. As I say
"There is no replacement for good ol' displacement ! "
Regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc. - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Website:Portraiture, Wedding Photography, Darkroom Info.,
World Field Photographers Association, FAQ's & More!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1 Apr 1998 21:39:48 GMT, dmu...@vcd.hp.com (Dave Munroe)
wrote:
PTOIE
Having owned both RB's and Blads, I would like to offer what I would consider a
balanced opinion. The RB is much more cumbersome than the Blad, but requires
much less maintenance. The RB has considerably more negative area than the
Blad, but many art directors and such actually appreciate square
transparencies, so they can decide how to crop the image. And with today's film
emulsions being so advanced, the smaller, square format does not leave you at a
disadvantage. Lenses: sorry, but the Blad has the RB beat, especially if you
are getting earlier (non-C) Sekor lenses. The later RB lenses are great,
though. Finally, the Blad is much easier to use and more versatile. It's
hand-holdable and quicker, since you don't have to wind the film, then cock the
shutter and fire--you just wind and fire. But this convenience comes at a
cost--they do need maintenance, and finding a good Hassy repairman can be
time-consuming and costly. In terms of design, the RB is much more sane, but
using it off the tripod can be a bit precarious. However, I find in my perusal
of used equipment pricing, that you get a lot more bang for the buck with RB's.
Right now though, I use Blads for commercial shooting.
Paul Taylor
504-831-1999
Dan Sprag
>they do need maintenance, and finding a good Hassy repairman can be
>time-consuming and costly. In terms of design, the RB is much more sane, but
>504-831-1999
Hi Paul. You in Baton Rouge, or New Orleans ? I found an excellent
repair technician, worked for Hasselblad for a number of years.
He's fast, honest and very reliable. Prices are good too. His name
is . Just had a CLA on my 150, and he turned it around in one day.
New main spring, sync contact and cocking ring release spring, along
with the cleaning and the whole thing cost me only 147.00. That lens
is good to go for another decade now.
Brad Sherman of Precision Camera. 1-800-263-6599
Håkan Gunnarsson
SPECTRUM wrote...
> I don't know of one manufacturer that makes square paper.
(snip)
I know: Kodak. Polymax RC II 10x10, 250 sheets, surface N. Product
#8669491.
--
Håkan Gunnarsson
Göteborg, Sweden
B&W Photos: http://www.student.gu.se/~hagu0009/photopag.html
Dan Sprag
>SPECTRUM wrote...
>> I don't know of one manufacturer that makes square paper.
> (snip)
>I know: Kodak. Polymax RC II 10x10, 250 sheets, surface N. Product
>#8669491.
All of my proofs come back on 5x5 paper. And there is 8x8 also.
Willem-Jan Markerink
>4. It's nice to have a little more negative with the RB.
Note that 6x7 is not even the limit for RB, assuming you get a late model
Pro-S or Pro-SD....in that case you can even get 6x8 motorized magazines.
Older Pro-S requires modification at Mamiya....don't think the oldest non-S
can be converted, as they can't control the motorized film transport.
But actual coverage differs with lens, aperture and focus....width ranges
from 71mm to 76mm....and I still wonder what coverage the 37mm fisheye has
(not listed)....does anyone know? Anyone ever measured?
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
bro...@ase.com
In article <35228df0...@news.cybercomm.net>,
> square ? For CD covers ?
What does the shape of the negative have to do with the shape of the final
image?
TB
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
SPECTRUM
I don't know. But it does have something to do with the
waste of film. As in cropping constantly to make a image fit a
certain perspective. So why crop and image in the DR/printer when
all you have to do is use the appropriate hardware in the first
place.
Besides my RB 67 I have a C-220. And I've only sold 1
square album in my life. America is rectangular.
Regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc. - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Website:Portraiture, Wedding Photography, Darkroom Info.,
World Field Photographers Association, FAQ's & More!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThRainKing
<<>Downsides to the RB67 are lack of Hassy brand image
Don't worry what others (clients?) >>
Actually, if you're worried about client's judgement of your MF gear, get an
RZ. Seems to be the studio standard these days...
As for crop... the usable area of the 6x7 size is greater than you'd first
think... crop a 6x6 image to magazine size and you end up awfully close to 645
territory.
BTW, regarding the RB's handholdability... I've done several handheld RB
shoots... get the grip holder... they're about $40-$60 used, and make things
much easier.
& BTW2... anyone feel the RZ prisms are remarkably dark??? Damn, it's hard to
focus with that thing on...
bro...@ase.com
In article <352bf4c0...@news.cybercomm.net>,
SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>
> I don't know. But it does have something to do with the
> waste of film.
How about the photographer who shoots a whole roll or more to get one great
image? Isn't that wastefull?
> As in cropping constantly to make a image fit a
> certain perspective.
I don't think I've ever cropped two images quite the same way.
>So why crop and image in the DR/printer when
> all you have to do is use the appropriate hardware in the first
> place.
Why go through the extra hassle with print film? If you always crop in the
camera just use slide film. I myself often shoot dancers in motion and don't
have time to crop carefully in camera or think about whether a particular
image will look better as a vertical or horizontal.
> America is rectangular.
This is just smug and silly.
Heavysteam
I'll stay with the RB67 in the studio. Revolving back makes it a easy to work
with on the tripod, and you can't beat the built-in bellows for closeup work.
The 6X7 image is about 60% larger than the 6X6 if you are cropping to
rectangular sizes.
When using primarily hand-held, I'll go with a 645 camera like the Mamiya,
Pentax or Bronica You can still go Hassy with a 645 back. Hand holding a
RB67 is easy for the first ten minutes, and increases in pain and fatigue
almost exponentially as time passes.
For the price of a used 501CM kit you can find a clean RB67 Pro-S with couple
of "C" lenses. If you want to add anything to that Hassy (like a 150mm
lens) you'll pay a dear price which will add more backs, another lens and other
goodies to your RB67 set. I'll go with the others on shying away from non-C
lenses. Not as much because of the lack of coating as the older shutter which
is expensive to replace. (They can't repair'em.)
DCJPhtgrfy
thrai...@aol.com (ThRainKing) wrote:
>Actually, if you're worried about client's judgement of your MF gear, get >an
>RZ. Seems to be the studio standard these days...
>& BTW2... anyone feel the RZ prisms are remarkably dark??? Damn, it's >hard to
>focus with that thing on...
Get a Beattie Intenscreen.
DCJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SPAMMERS, send SPAM to:
tos...@aol.com
pres...@whitehouse.gov
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
ro...@127.0.0.1
ab...@127.0.0.1
rhu...@fcc.gov
jqu...@fcc.gov
sn...@fcc.gov
rch...@fcc.gov
sync@localhost
SPECTRUM
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:31:22 -0600, bro...@ase.com wrote:
>In article <352bf4c0...@news.cybercomm.net>,
> SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>>
>> I don't know. But it does have something to do with the
>> waste of film.
>
>How about the photographer who shoots a whole roll or more to get one great
>image? Isn't that wastefull?.
Yep ! This has been brought on in the last 20-25 years as
rollfilm (35mm) cameras have become so incredibly popular. I hate
the occasion when a bride ask how many proofs do we usually have
in our packages. You know it's never enough !
>> As in cropping constantly to make a image fit a
>> certain perspective.
>
>I don't think I've ever cropped two images quite the same way.
So I take it that you have you own lab ? And don't use
crop cards ?
>>So why crop and image in the DR/printer when
>> all you have to do is use the appropriate hardware in the first
>> place.
>
>Why go through the extra hassle with print film? If you always crop in the
>camera just use slide film. I myself often shoot dancers in motion and don't
>have time to crop carefully in camera or think about whether a particular
>image will look better as a vertical or horizontal.
I'd love to but I don't think the brides care for that
burned out look !
>> America is rectangular.
>
>This is just smug and silly.
Now what in the world would make you say that ?
RBucha7924
Have been in battle (weddings) w/ both cameras.
Both are durable. The RB does seem to be a little
bit quieter, but not enough to matter. The Mamiya
does have the money lens, the 150 soft focus. There
is just no beating this lens. Both have excellent
fisheyes. The Hasselblad is much smaller and lighter.
The Hasselblad will also appreciate (a lot) in value.
The Hasselblad will cost you about 2X+ what the RB
will cost. The Hasselblad does not need a candid
system, but a 645 for candids for the RB system
is a very good idea due to size.
-Rick
ThRainKing
<<How about the photographer who shoots a whole roll or more to get one great
image? Isn't that wastefull?>>
Not if you get that one great image.
as for the square vs. horizontal argument...
the square format can make for some great compositions... especially if you
like to print with a bit of the neg. holder showing (or the film borders)...
just something about that cool "editorial" square. But for commercial work,
you'll be cropping rectangular 99% of the time.
If you're shooting for midsize to major agencies or corporate accounts, all of
those AD's have been "trained" that 6x7 is the "commercial" format. You can get
away with square if you can sell yourself as the "artsy" type of supplier. But
few of us can pull off the prima donna act. The AD's & CD's I know that are
buying MF images (in the bigger leagues) are seeing a LOT of film from RZ's...
& notice photo shoots shown on "ET" or MTV... that's usually an RZ in the
background if it's tripod MF... though you see a lot of Pentax 6x7 from the
editorial shooters.
Just my .02... from experience...
NYCFoto
Hasselblad and RZ (RB) are apples and oranges. They are both very good
cameras but quite different. The RZ has the advantage of a bigger negative but
at the price of being far heavier, more cumbersome and only giving you 10
exposures per roll. The hasselblad is far lighter, and when you're on a
location and shlepping 2 or 3 bodies, 5 backs and 6 lenses the difference in
weight is considerable. It's true that with the blad you are cropping the
square to a 6x4.5 to make it fit most popular print sizes, however, you can use
a 6x4.5 back on the blad, but the advantage of using it 6x6 over 6x4.5 is that
with 6x6 you will have the oppurtunity to adjust your crop with greater freedom
than with the 6x4.5.
The advantage of 6x7 being that much better than 6x6 or 6x4.5 in the area of
enlargement is not that great. Films over time have become finer grained and
sharper and unless you are doing very large prints the difference is barely
discernible. Also in my opinion and with my own tests, the hasselblad's lenses
in general are slightly superior than the mamiya's so the advantage of the
larger film for the mamiya is diminished slightly.
Ultimately it comes down to what you do and what you're comfortable with. For
me the Blad is a location and studio camera, and the mamiya is purely a studio
camera and if film size is that important in the studio I'll shoot it LF
anyway.
ThRainKing
<< The advantage of 6x7 being that much better than 6x6 or 6x4.5 in the
area of enlargement is not that great. Films over time have become finer
grained and
sharper and unless you are doing very large prints the difference is barely
discernible. >>
That's true if you're selling prints. In advertising & catalog shooting, 90%
of my sales are transparencies. The 6x7 neg does provide a significant increase
in scan clarity--there is a crispness to 6x7 that does suffer, albeit very
subtly, at 645. (Primarily for full-page images).
Also, for complex lighting setups or fine detail, I know several clients who
greatly appreciate the bigger 'roid on set. (I've done many shots where film
grain was part of the creative effect. If the lighting/filtering/etc. is
fairly complex, it's not unusual for me to go through the whole roid process at
6x7, and then switch to 35 for film).
Overall though, I must agree that the choice of format/manufacturer really has
to be a personal choice. But if you find the 6x7 size is a business advantage,
you may have to compromise.
MC
Tmerk10
The Rb67 negative's size is nice plus you have the rotating back. I will say I
have used the rb and I love it. If I had to buy again it would be atough
descion for me too. The price point would be the definitive point for me. They
are both good cameras and have both good glass. The only diference being the
size issue and weight. If you are not worried about the size of the Rb go with
it you want be dissatified.
SPECTRUM
On 3 Apr 1998 15:04:40 GMT, nyc...@aol.com (NYCFoto) wrote:
> Hasselblad and RZ (RB) are apples and oranges. They are both very good
>cameras but quite different. The RZ has the advantage of a bigger negative but
>at the price of being far heavier, more cumbersome and only giving you 10
>exposures per roll. The hasselblad is far lighter, and when you're on a
>location and shlepping 2 or 3 bodies, 5 backs and 6 lenses the difference in
>weight is considerable. It's true that with the blad you are cropping the
>square to a 6x4.5 to make it fit most popular print sizes, however, you can use
>a 6x4.5 back on the blad, but the advantage of using it 6x6 over 6x4.5 is that
>with 6x6 you will have the oppurtunity to adjust your crop with greater freedom
>than with the 6x4.5.
Perhaps using a 645 back on a Hassy is some peoples cup
of tea but if I had one, I' be loath to do so. The only point
would be to save the 3 frames of film that the 645 gives you per
roll.
And I never found 645 to give a good crop on 8X10's. It
always seemed I was cutting off heads or feet.
> The advantage of 6x7 being that much better than 6x6 or 6x4.5 in the area of
>enlargement is not that great.
18% larger than 6X6, 55% larger than 645. And if you crop
a 6X6 to a 645 then compare the difference....... well it's
almost like comparing 645 to 35mm. Rather pointless as the
results are in the images.
> Films over time have become finer grained and
>sharper and unless you are doing very large prints the difference is barely
>discernible. Also in my opinion and with my own tests, the hasselblad's lenses
>in general are slightly superior than the mamiya's so the advantage of the
>larger film for the mamiya is diminished slightly.
I haven't been able to find any difference in the film
and I custom print for several people. Under an enlarger with a
good grain magnifier they all look alike.
> Ultimately it comes down to what you do and what you're comfortable with. For
>me the Blad is a location and studio camera, and the mamiya is purely a studio
>camera and if film size is that important in the studio I'll shoot it LF
>anyway.
Exactly ! How many people are actually strong enough to
carry a RB the entire day of a wedding ? Whew ! That can be a
workout !
LF ? That's my specialty. What do you use there ? A
Wisner or Canham ?
NYCFoto
John S Douglas wrote in reply to a posting by me:
> The advantage of 6x7 being that much better than 6x6 or 6x4.5 in the
area of
>enlargement is not that great.< NYCfoto
>>>>>>>>>>
18% larger than 6X6, 55% larger than 645. And if you crop
a 6X6 to a 645 then compare the difference....... well it's
almost like comparing 645 to 35mm. Rather pointless as the
results are in the images.<<<<< JS Douglas
I shoot mostly for advertising and editorial and quite often my work is not
cropped to the 8.5 x 11 or 8x10 formats, so the film size difference in
neglible to me. The superiority of the Hasselblad lenses makes the film size
difference moot.
> Ultimately it comes down to what you do and what you're comfortable
with. For
>me the Blad is a location and studio camera, and the mamiya is purely a studio
>camera and if film size is that important in the studio I'll shoot it LF
>anyway. NYCfoto
>>>>>>>>>>>>Exactly ! How many people are actually strong enough to
carry a RB the entire day of a wedding ? Whew ! That can be a
workout !
LF ? That's my specialty. What do you use there ? A
Wisner or Canham ? <<<<<<<< JS Douglas
For large format I use Sinar, if 4x5 or 8x10 is over kill and if I need
perspective control I'll use the Sinar Zoom back, which gives me 6x
4.5,6.7,9,12. Otherwise for location work or people photography I'll use the
Hasselblad.
bro...@ase.com
In article <35284760...@news.cybercomm.net>,
SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:31:22 -0600, bro...@ase.com wrote:
>
> >In article <352bf4c0...@news.cybercomm.net>,
> > SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know. But it does have something to do with the
> >> waste of film.
> >
>
> Yep ! This has been brought on in the last 20-25 years as
> rollfilm (35mm) cameras have become so incredibly popular. I hate
> the occasion when a bride ask how many proofs do we usually have
> in our packages. You know it's never enough !
Where is this leading? First you complain about wasting film, then you agree
that one should use lots of film. Do you have a point?
>
> >> As in cropping constantly to make a image fit a
> >> certain perspective.
> >
> >I don't think I've ever cropped two images quite the same way.
>
> So I take it that you have you own lab ? And don't use
> crop cards ?
I do my own B&W (color one day soon...). My color lab crops from a marked up
proof, a marked up neg sleeve, or verbal instructions. If I want a different
aspect ratio I just trim the print.
Håkan Gunnarsson
Why do the discussions about Hasselblad vs. others always develop into a
discussion pro et contra the square? 5,6 x 7,0 is considerably larger
than 5,6 x 5,6 therefore are RZ's and RB's considerably larger than
H'blads. Every format is a compromise. Is there really anything more to
say...?
Eugene A. Pallat
SPECTRUM <SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com> wrote in article
<3522b8fb...@news.cybercomm.net>...
> Personally I think the RB is a much more impressive
> camera just looking at its size !
> The Hassy's are beautiful but the RB's are huge. As I say
> "There is no replacement for good ol' displacement ! "
I guess my "hand held" 4x5 Speed Graphic puts all of those MF cameras to
shame then. ;-)
> On 1 Apr 1998 21:39:48 GMT, dmu...@vcd.hp.com (Dave Munroe)
> wrote:
>
> >>Downsides to the RB67 are lack of Hassy brand image
> >
> >Don't worry what others (clients?) think about your camera. Unless you
> >show up with an Instamatic, they have no justifiable reason to critique
> >your choice of equipment.
> >
> >-Dave
>
>
Remove the '-glop-' for sending email to me.
Gene eapa...@orion-glop-data.com
Orion Data Systems
Solicitations to me must be pre-approved in writing
by me after soliciitor pays $1,000 US per incident.
Solicitations sent to me are proof you accept this
notice and will send a certified check forthwith.
SPECTRUM
On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:49:08 -0600, bro...@ase.com wrote:
>In article <35284760...@news.cybercomm.net>,
> SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:31:22 -0600, bro...@ase.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <352bf4c0...@news.cybercomm.net>,
>> > SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't know. But it does have something to do with the
>> >> waste of film.
>> >
>> >How about the photographer who shoots a whole roll or more to get one great
>> >image? Isn't that wastefull?.
>>
>> Yep ! This has been brought on in the last 20-25 years as
>> rollfilm (35mm) cameras have become so incredibly popular. I hate
>> the occasion when a bride ask how many proofs do we usually have
>> in our packages. You know it's never enough !
>
>Where is this leading? First you complain about wasting film, then you agree
>that one should use lots of film. Do you have a point?
My point wasn't very clear was it ? What I was trying to
explain is that most photographers don't need to shoot an entire
roll of film. And if they do they make each and every frame
count.
Your point about the low return rate among photographers
today reminded me of the current situation that many
photographers in bridal photography feel is "O.K." . That being
to shoot 300-400 frames of film to get 50 good images. And 1-5
great ones. Accepting mediocrity.
>> >> As in cropping constantly to make a image fit a
>> >> certain perspective.
>> >
>> >I don't think I've ever cropped two images quite the same way.
>>
>> So I take it that you have you own lab ? And don't use
>> crop cards ?
>
>I do my own B&W (color one day soon...). My color lab crops from a marked up
>proof, a marked up neg sleeve, or verbal instructions. If I want a different
>aspect ratio I just trim the print.
That would be rather hard if you were selling that print
to a client that expected a specific size. IE one of my brides !
And while the custom printing is usually the alternative, I find
it particularly expensive. That's why I print my own custom work.
SPECTRUM
On 4 Apr 1998 04:05:01 GMT, "Eugene A. Pallat"
<eapa...@orion-glop-data.com> wrote:
>SPECTRUM <SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com> wrote in article
><3522b8fb...@news.cybercomm.net>...
>> Personally I think the RB is a much more impressive
>> camera just looking at its size !
>> The Hassy's are beautiful but the RB's are huge. As I say
>> "There is no replacement for good ol' displacement ! "
>
>I guess my "hand held" 4x5 Speed Graphic puts all of those MF cameras to
>shame then. ;-)
Personally I think so but the general public seems to
think they're just another piece of movie props !
My first move up in format was to a Speed. Check it out
at :
http://www.spectrumphoto.com/Photographs/Speed.Graphic.jpg
Comes in real handy when I want a IR shot at a wedding. Although
I did replace the Ektar with a 150/APO-Symmar.
Kroppe
I'm the original poster of this question, and today I took the plunge
into the land of rotating backs. I got a real nice RB67 Pro S with late
WLF, 120 Pro S back, 90mm C lens (like new in box) and multi-angle grip
with rotating flash shoe. I think the price I got was excellent. Came
with camera and lens manuals, too.
My decision vs. the Hasselblad was made on two simple criteria:
- Negative size
- Condition of cameras in my price range (expectation of near term
repairs)
I freely admit that the Hasselblad handles better -- after handling a
dozen RBs at a camera show today, the blad feels almost like a toy.
However, I find that with the multi-angle grip I can hand hold pretty
well.
I do casual portraits of my son and wife, and also shoot classic cars.
I can get down on one knee with the camera resting on the other knee,
and focus easily. Even while standing, with the grip on the left hand I
can support the camera *and* focus with my right hand. Yes, yes, I know
the 500CM only needs one hand to support it, but what the heck! I
*really* like the rack and pinion focusing and the minimum focusing
distance is ridiculously close. The back loads film smoothly up to the
first frame, which is a big improvement vs. the Hassy 12 back where you
have to peep through the hole to see the number. I get a kick out of
winding the film separately -- I know not the most efficient, but an
arcane pleasure.
For now I'm using a Vivitar 2600D flash on the grip with a PC cord, and
I might get a PC cord for my Minolta 4000AF, which is pretty powerful.
THANK YOU ALL very much for your extremely helpful comments. Each one
has been thoughtful, from both sides of the fence.
One question, the lens came with a rubber hood, but it says "RB67
127~250" and "M645 145", but on the inside it says "90". Do I have the
wrong hood for a 90mm lens? Also looking for a 77mm front lens cap with
chrome "Mamiya" molded on the front.
Thanks again to all.
B.J. Kroppe
Kroppe wrote:
>
> Hello -
>
> I am at the cusp of a decision to buy RB67 vs. 500CM. My budget is
> fixed, but sufficient enough to pick up a body, lens and back for either
> of these two systems.
>
> I would like anyone's comments on my assumptions:
>
> 1. for the same price for body, normal lens and back, I will get
> a better condition RB67 than I will a 500CM. This is due to
> the brand image of the Hassy.
>
> 2. because of 1. above, the Hassy will likely require maintenance
> sooner than the RB, therefore the short term cost of ownership
> will be higher. I'm thinking of back and body repairs/adjustments.
>
> 3. Sekor vs. Zeiss optics quality is similar, especially up to
> 20 x 24 enlargements.
>
> 4. It's nice to have a little more negative with the RB.
>
> 5. Both systems are replete with lenses and accessories. Not that I
> will be sinking kilodollars into lenses soon.
>
> My conclusion is that I will be better off with the RB67, because I will
> get a more reliable (due to age/condition) system with the RB67 and also
> will get a little more negative.
>
> Downsides to the RB67 are lack of Hassy brand image and less comfortable
> handling (due to size), but both of these downsides are not big issues
> to me.
>
> I would really appreciate some opinions on my reasoning from both sides
> of the camp.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> B.J. Kroppe
> near Detroit, MI
Timothy Schooler
>dozen RBs at a camera show today, the blad feels almost like a toy.
>first frame, which is a big improvement vs. the Hassy 12 back where you
>have to peep through the hole to see the number. I get a kick out of
>winding the film separately -- I know not the most efficient, but an
>arcane pleasure.
It must have been a very old Hasselblad back. All modern Hasselblad
backs load stop at the first frame. No need to look at any window.
And handles like a toy ? RB's are great, but Hasselblads are built
like a tank. Hardly like a toy.
bro...@ase.com
In article <35258850...@news.cybercomm.net>,
SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
[snip]
> Your point about the low return rate among photographers
> today reminded me of the current situation that many
> photographers in bridal photography feel is "O.K." . That being
> to shoot 300-400 frames of film to get 50 good images. And 1-5
> great ones. Accepting mediocrity.
> That would be rather hard if you were selling that print
> to a client that expected a specific size. IE one of my brides !
It seems you have a narrow view of photography. I assure you there is more to
photography than brides and weddings or what some client wants to buy.
Besides, alot of wedding albums are done with square prints. I use 35mm and
6x6 to suit my own aestetic sensibilities. I size my prints for the same
reason.
Kroppe
Tim -
Yes, the back I rented was an old 12 back. The winding knob seemed like
it was slipping vs. the film back gears sometimes.
I didn't mean to knock Hasselblad with the "toy" comment. It was just
very surprising to me to feel the size and weight difference between the
dozen or so RB and 500CM cameras I handled on Saturday. This is a
backhanded compliment to Hasselblad's superior handling, but I could
have said so more clearly.
Sincerely,
B.J. Kroppe
Jaybell
Look at an RZ then there is no contest....
Timothy Schooler
>I didn't mean to knock Hasselblad with the "toy" comment. It was just
>very surprising to me to feel the size and weight difference between the
>dozen or so RB and 500CM cameras I handled on Saturday. This is a
>backhanded compliment to Hasselblad's superior handling, but I could
>have said so more clearly.
Understood. Thanks for the clarification B.J.
Roger Morris
> all things being equal?
well then I'd say they were about the same.
David Johnson
SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
> My point wasn't very clear was it ? What I was trying to
>explain is that most photographers don't need to shoot an entire
>roll of film. And if they do they make each and every frame
>count.
>today reminded me of the current situation that many
>photographers in bridal photography feel is "O.K." . That being
>to shoot 300-400 frames of film to get 50 good images. And 1-5
>great ones. Accepting mediocrity.
I don't shoot professionally, but I view shooting a lot of frames
by pros differently. I view it as cheap insurance. Missing great
shots by being conservative with film can greatly reduce your
profitability.
In one book by Galen Rowell, he says that on one of his first
assignments he got some good photos and shot relatively little
film. His editor praise his photography but told him to burn
more film next time. The editor said that it was better to spend
a little more money on film than possibly miss a great shot.
When I shoot people, I burn a lot of film. In my experience,
a VERY SLIGHT change of gesture or expression can have a
TREMENDOUS change in the impact of a photograph. I photographed
my baby daughter recently. I had two consecutive frames that
are very nearly identical. Anyone would be hard pressed to
state how the two photographs are different. Yet, one has an
order of magnitude more impact than the other. Even though the
difference between the two is very subtle, the aesthetic difference
is great.
--
David Johnson
XLNT
da...@xlnt.com
Robert Silvers
David Johnson wrote in message <352973FE...@spamu.xlnt.com>...
>SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>In one book by Galen Rowell, he says that on one of his first
>assignments he got some good photos and shot relatively little
>film. His editor praise his photography but told him to burn
>more film next time. The editor said that it was better to spend
>a little more money on film than possibly miss a great shot.
>
>When I shoot people, I burn a lot of film. In my experience,
>a VERY SLIGHT change of gesture or expression can have a
>TREMENDOUS change in the impact of a photograph. I photographed
>my baby daughter recently. I had two consecutive frames that
>are very nearly identical. Anyone would be hard pressed to
>state how the two photographs are different. Yet, one has an
>order of magnitude more impact than the other. Even though the
>difference between the two is very subtle, the aesthetic difference
>is great.
This is the method of shooting lots of film and hoping for a good shot. I
push the button when I *see* a good shot in the viewfinder. If you
concentrate on each one you can do way better. I don't think of shooting
lots of film as being more expensive -- just that you have a lower chance of
getting good shots! I once was given an assignment of shooting just one roll
of film of random people on the street. Out of 36 shots, I got about 30
great ones. This taught me to shoot carefully.
R.S. Paulson
The light seals on several of my RB67 backs are deteriorating. Does anyone
know of an economical source for the material? I bought some from Mamiya
when refurbishing my camera.... but as I remember, they charged quite a lot
for a few very small pieces of material. Thanks!
SPECTRUM
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 20:40:31 -0600, bro...@ase.com wrote:
>In article <35258850...@news.cybercomm.net>,
> SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>[snip]
>> Your point about the low return rate among photographers
>> today reminded me of the current situation that many
>> photographers in bridal photography feel is "O.K." . That being
>> to shoot 300-400 frames of film to get 50 good images. And 1-5
>> great ones. Accepting mediocrity.
>[snip]
>> That would be rather hard if you were selling that print
>> to a client that expected a specific size. IE one of my brides !
>
>It seems you have a narrow view of photography. I assure you there is more to
>photography than brides and weddings or what some client wants to buy.
Well if nobody buys them I guess they're good for
something. Home decor ? And as far as I know portrait and bridal
photography is possibly the largest part of the photographic
industry.
>Besides, alot of wedding albums are done with square prints. I use 35mm and
>6x6 to suit my own aestetic sensibilities. I size my prints for the same
>reason.
And I'm glad that your taste matches your clients. Here
in S.Jersey (the land of cows !) You can't sell a square image.
But I agree that there are quite a few areas where sq.format is
not only acceptable but actually required by the people in that
area. And ther same goes for art directors !
One such place is right around the corner from me.
Lakewood, N.J. is home to a great many Jewish families and they
won't even consider a rectangular image. I have a C-220 for those
occasions that I actually book anything from that community.
SPECTRUM
>SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
>> My point wasn't very clear was it ? What I was trying to
>>explain is that most photographers don't need to shoot an entire
>>roll of film. And if they do they make each and every frame
>>count.
>> Your point about the low return rate among photographers
>>today reminded me of the current situation that many
>>photographers in bridal photography feel is "O.K." . That being
>>to shoot 300-400 frames of film to get 50 good images. And 1-5
>>great ones. Accepting mediocrity.
>
>I don't shoot professionally, but I view shooting a lot of frames
>by pros differently. I view it as cheap insurance. Missing great
>shots by being conservative with film can greatly reduce your
>profitability.
If your a pro and your missing great shots with a RB
then chances are you should be in a another field of endeavor !
Because you weren't prepared in the first place !
And over shooting a wedding to the tune of a dollar/shot
can quickly cut into your budget as well. The difference between
180 proof wedding and a 300 proof wedding ? About $120 dollars !
Do that just 15 times a year and you'll watch your childs college
fund go down the crapper.
>In one book by Galen Rowell, he says that on one of his first
>assignments he got some good photos and shot relatively little
>film. His editor praise his photography but told him to burn
>more film next time. The editor said that it was better to spend
>a little more money on film than possibly miss a great shot.
If someone else is paying for the film then I'll shoot
until I'm content. If it's out of my pocket then I am going to
make every shot count.
>When I shoot people, I burn a lot of film. In my experience,
>a VERY SLIGHT change of gesture or expression can have a
>TREMENDOUS change in the impact of a photograph. I photographed
>my baby daughter recently. I had two consecutive frames that
>are very nearly identical. Anyone would be hard pressed to
>state how the two photographs are different. Yet, one has an
>order of magnitude more impact than the other. Even though the
>difference between the two is very subtle, the aesthetic difference
>is great.
--
>David Johnson
>XLNT
da...@xlnt.com
Different strokes. I tend to compose the image and then
wait for the expressions. And always be prepared !
NYCFoto
David Johnson wrote in message:
>When I shoot people, I burn a lot of film. In my experience,
>a VERY SLIGHT change of gesture or expression can have a
>TREMENDOUS change in the impact of a photograph. I photographed
>my baby daughter recently. I had two consecutive frames that
>are very nearly identical. Anyone would be hard pressed to
>state how the two photographs are different. Yet, one has an
>order of magnitude more impact than the other. Even though the
>difference between the two is very subtle, the aesthetic difference
>is great.
Robert Silvers replied:
>>>>This is the method of shooting lots of film and hoping for a good shot.I
push the button when I *see* a good shot in the viewfinder. If you
concentrate on each one you can do way better. I don't think of shooting
lots of film as being more expensive -- just that you have a lower chance of
getting good shots! I once was given an assignment of shooting just one roll of
film of random people on the street. Out of 36 shots, I got about 30 great
ones. This taught me to shoot carefully.<<<<<<<
As a pro you shoot film accordingly. If you are doing a still life or a
people shot that is very limited in movement or expression due to client
requirements you can afford to be very controlled and to use film sparingly.
However if you are shooting a subject and the emphasis is on spontanenity or
action then you are gong to burn alot of film. in addition extra film is good
insurance. If I go on location and shoot things that are not easily redone I
will shoot far more film than is actually required and for many reasons. It's
simply playing it smart.
First when I shoot 35mm, I make certain to cover each shot (setup) on 2
different camera bodies and I will shoot multiple rolls on each. I will not
process all of the film from a shoot like that at once. An example, I will send
a test roll in first, the test roll is usually an extra roll that I shoot at
the end of a setup, it is purely for testing and I will have it clip tested at
+1/4, normal and - 1/4. After seeing this film processed I will take one roll
from the 2 or3 shot from each body for each set ( of say 6 total rolls shot
on 2 different bodies, I will send in 2), and send those in to the lab. After
I get those back and I see that they do not require any changes, I will send in
the remainder or another 2 rolls. By doing this even if my lab has a
catastrophic failure, I will only lose at most a third of my film. And by
shooting on 2 different bodies, even if a body fails unbeknownst to be, i still
have multiple rolls available from the other body. The bottom line is that as
a professional you have to hope for the best,assume the worst and make
contingency plans.
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
R.S. Paulson wrote:
I bought mine from Mamiya and wasn't put off by the price. If I recall,
it was less than $10 for the set. See my web site for info on how to do
the replacement. The technique I describe for replacing mirror damping
foam works for RB backs as well.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an
undeniable truth which is contrary to that person's beliefs.
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY:
gste...@inficad.com E-mail responses to my Intel address will be
cheerfully ignored (Intel policy).
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
Jerry Houston
A long time ago, in a newsgroup far away, discussing the foam in another
type of camera, someone mentioned that he regularly buys 12"x12" sheets of
the right stuff at a craft shop. The next time I have a need, I think I'll
give that a try.
I've successfully trimmed down the 1/4" weather-stripping foam, but it's
difficult to get that stuff nice and even looking. Quite functional, yes,
but not pretty.
Glenn Stewart (Arizona) wrote in message <352A8811...@inficad.com>...
Wayne Firth
I bought a sheet of black foam about 12"x18" at a large craft store for
99 cents. It cuts easily with a razor blade.
L DeVose
I only recently joined the family of RB67 users. I LIKE IT!!! It's making my
Koni-Omega 200 and my C-3 very lonely!
Okay, now that I am no longer looking at my Minolta X-700 settings, clicks and
dials, wou;ld someone tell me the times when I use M versus X synchro?
Also, when I use "T" shutter setting I have to press the cocking lever to get
the shutter to close after I release the shutter release button. Anybody can
tell me what I 'm doing wrong? Or is this a job for REPAIRMAN!?!
It does everything else quite well.
Leon De Vose
lde...@aol.com
By the way I really appreciated the discussion comparing the RB to Hassy 501CM.
VKruger
>wou;ld someone tell me the times when I use M versus X synchro?
X synchronization is the normal setting to use with electronic flash.
>Also, when I use "T" shutter setting I have to press the cocking lever to get
>the shutter to close after I release the shutter release button. Anybody can
>tell me what I 'm doing wrong?
You're not doing anything wrong. This is exactly how "T" is supposed to work.
It's the setting for (T)ime exposures.
VK
ThRainKing
>Also, when I use "T" shutter setting I have to press the cocking lever to get
>the shutter to close after I release the shutter release button. Anybody can
>tell me what I 'm doing wrong?
>You're not doing anything wrong. This is exactly how "T" is supposed to >work.
If you are doing a time exposure and are concerned about blurring from the
amount of force it takes to close the shutter (actually to reset the mirror)
keep a piece of black card in your bag. You can hold this in front of the lens
at the end of your exposure with one hand, and cock with the other [...er...
that's "cock the shutter" not "hold your"...well, you get the idea]. (Or use
the mirror lock-up and a dual cable release). The first time I needed this, I
was shooting an interior... I just yanked one of the dividers out of my camera
case and used it.
Paul C. Resch
lde...@aol.com (L DeVose) wrote:
>Okay, now that I am no longer looking at my Minolta X-700 settings, clicks and
>dials, wou;ld someone tell me the times when I use M versus X synchro?
>Leon De Vose
>lde...@aol.com
>
>By the way I really appreciated the discussion comparing the RB to Hassy 501CM.
M synch was for flashbulbs which took a short time to reach full
brightness. M-synch would fire the bulb and then release the shutter.
Since the demise of flashbulbs M isn't used much.
The symptom of using it incorrectly is this.
Electronic flash set to M, the flash willl fire before the shutter
opens.
Flashbulb set to X-synch, severe underexposure due to bulb being fired
when shutter fully open.
I know, if there is a mistake to make, I've made it.
Paul Resch
bro...@ase.com
In article <199804140325...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lde...@aol.com (L DeVose) wrote:
> wou;ld someone tell me the times when I use M versus X synchro?
Always use X sync with electronic flashes. M is for flash bulbs. M adds a
delay between triggering the bulb and opening the shutter to let the fire in
the bulb build up.
>
> Also, when I use "T" shutter setting I have to press the cocking lever to
get
> the shutter to close after I release the shutter release button. Anybody
can
> tell me what I 'm doing wrong?
The T setting is supposed to work this way. Push the shutter button to open,
push it again to close. The B setting is for push to open, release to close.
David Dyer-Bennet
lde...@aol.com (L DeVose) writes:
>I only recently joined the family of RB67 users. I LIKE IT!!! It's making my
>Koni-Omega 200 and my C-3 very lonely!
>Okay, now that I am no longer looking at my Minolta X-700 settings, clicks and
>dials, wou;ld someone tell me the times when I use M versus X synchro?
X synch is for electronic flash. M synch is for flash bulbs which say
to use M synch (in other words you're unlikely to use it much).
>Also, when I use "T" shutter setting I have to press the cocking lever to get
>the shutter to close after I release the shutter release button. Anybody can
>tell me what I 'm doing wrong? Or is this a job for REPAIRMAN!?!
Don't know these particular cameras, but traditionally, a "B" setting
keeps the shutter open while the release is held, while a "T" setting
opens the shutter when you press the release, and closes it when you
do something specific (press a special release button, press the
shutter release again, something like that). "B" is for bulb -- hold
the shutter open a relatively short time while you fire a flash bulb
manually. "T" is for time -- hold the shutter open for a long time
exposure, when it might be inconvenient to have to keep the release
pressed (Yes, I know about cable releases with locks).
--
David Dyer-Bennet d...@ddb.com
Me: http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf)
Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Mike
David Dyer-Bennet wrote in message <6h1e11$hbi$1...@gw.ddb.com>...
>lde...@aol.com (L DeVose) writes:
>>I only recently joined the family of RB67 users. I LIKE IT!!! It's
making my
>>Koni-Omega 200 and my C-3 very lonely!
>
>>Also, when I use "T" shutter setting I have to press the cocking lever to
get
>>the shutter to close after I release the shutter release button. Anybody
can
>>tell me what I 'm doing wrong? Or is this a job for REPAIRMAN!?!
When using "T" and you want to close the shutter......simply turn the speed
ring to "1".......
Mike
20 plus years servicing RB's and other MF systems