Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,065   Online: 817
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    EKDobbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    124
    As someone who owns a 645 pro and heavily researched the RB67, I'd suggest feeling the weight of the camera first. I thought moving from 35mm to 645 was heavy, but the RB is almost twice as heavy as the 645 when fitted with a lens. Not a walkaround kind of deal, and I would only move from 6x4.5 to 6x7 if I really needed the extra film space. I don't print above 8x10, due to some limitations in the darkroom, so 645 is probably more than enough for my purposes, resolution wise. The only thing I would gain is the macro-focus capability, slightly improved detail and rendering in my prints, and a good conversation piece. The flash-sync capabilities are unimportant to me, as I never work with flash and film.
    In other worlds he has
    darker days, blacker swells.
    Strokes that mix noir revenge
    on waves of grey.

  2. #22
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,425
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by EKDobbs View Post
    the RB is almost twice as heavy as the 645 when fitted with a lens. Not a walkaround kind of deal
    I consider the RB67 (with the left hand grip) to be a walk around camera but I do suggest people try to handle one first before buying as not everyone will agree with me!


    Steve.

  3. #23
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I consider the RB67 (with the left hand grip) to be a walk around camera but I do suggest people try to handle one first before buying as not everyone will agree with me!


    Steve.
    I anchor mine to a Manfrotto 055 on a ballhead and just carry it with an extra back, film, maybe a polarizer, and meter. Mamiya 645 if I'm covering more real estate or need to move faster. The RB67's weight is a bit oversold.

  4. #24
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,575
    Images
    59
    I find that the size of the RB67 is more important than the weight, per se.

    Although once you ad a couple of extra lenses, it is the weight and the size that one notices.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,259
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    I find that the size of the RB67 is more important than the weight, per se.

    Although once you ad a couple of extra lenses, it is the weight and the size that one notices.
    That's the truth. An extra lens AND a prism viewfinder if you get one adds alot of volume. One other consideration is if shooting with a waist level or non-metered prism you have to allow for exposure on bellows draw on close shots according too the side mounted scale. If your a reasonably tall guy tho the camera and one lens is not a bad package and easily transportable. I'd rate it about the same as carrying a 4x5 Graphic with the RB a faster shooter and the Graphic with more abilities. One other option is the Pentax 67 II.
    W.A. Crider

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    29
    Thanks to all,
    It,s the portrait mode only that I have reservations with the 645, unless shooting with an eye prism
    that I can rotate, 645 that is always in landscape orientation ( I think) would be perfect for me.
    Less weight and fair size negatives.
    Haven't totally ruled out 6x6, such a classic. But I just can't see in my mind a landscape shot that is square.
    Till I make up my mind, I will start to shoot with my new FE2, new old stock that I got last year. and get set up to even see if I can finish the negatives myself I don't even know if I can do that.
    All I know is that a couple of months ago, I went to WalMart which is the only place left that finishes negatives and I asked about finishing Chromogenic black and white. the answer that I got was, " If it says professional on the box we can't finish it" to which I explained that this has nothing to do with it, it is the process , and that they are made to be finished in C41. To which the response was, " what is C41".
    I WALKED OUT.
    I will be without a computer for a few days as it is going out to get Windows 7 installed.
    But still feel free to comment in the interim.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald

  7. #27
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by RonaldD View Post
    Thanks to all,
    It,s the portrait mode only that I have reservations with the 645, unless shooting with an eye prism
    that I can rotate, 645 that is always in landscape orientation ( I think) would be perfect for me.
    Less weight and fair size negatives.
    Haven't totally ruled out 6x6, such a classic. But I just can't see in my mind a landscape shot that is square.
    Till I make up my mind, I will start to shoot with my new FE2, new old stock that I got last year. and get set up to even see if I can finish the negatives myself I don't even know if I can do that.
    All I know is that a couple of months ago, I went to WalMart which is the only place left that finishes negatives and I asked about finishing Chromogenic black and white. the answer that I got was, " If it says professional on the box we can't finish it" to which I explained that this has nothing to do with it, it is the process , and that they are made to be finished in C41. To which the response was, " what is C41".
    I WALKED OUT.
    I will be without a computer for a few days as it is going out to get Windows 7 installed.
    But still feel free to comment in the interim.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald
    What dark corner of Ontario is home?

  8. #28
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,425
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by RonaldD View Post
    Haven't totally ruled out 6x6, such a classic. But I just can't see in my mind a landscape shot that is square.
    It's worth thinking about. My first medium format SLR was a Bronica ETRS as that was all I could afford. Later I bought an RB67. If I could have afforded a Bronica SQ at the time I bought the ETRS I don't think I would have bothered with the RB67.

    however, I do like the square format and my Rolleicord is probably my most used camera.


    Steve.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    29
    CGW,
    Haileybury, ( now Temiskaming Shores )
    about 145 KM north of North Bay.
    It's actually what we older person refer to the Tri Towns.
    Cobalt, Haileybury and New Liskeard
    Ronald

  10. #30
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by RonaldD View Post
    Thanks to all,
    It,s the portrait mode only that I have reservations with the 645, unless shooting with an eye prism
    that I can rotate, 645 that is always in landscape orientation ( I think) would be perfect for me.
    Less weight and fair size negatives.
    Haven't totally ruled out 6x6, such a classic. But I just can't see in my mind a landscape shot that is square.
    Till I make up my mind, I will start to shoot with my new FE2, new old stock that I got last year. and get set up to even see if I can finish the negatives myself I don't even know if I can do that.
    All I know is that a couple of months ago, I went to WalMart which is the only place left that finishes negatives and I asked about finishing Chromogenic black and white. the answer that I got was, " If it says professional on the box we can't finish it" to which I explained that this has nothing to do with it, it is the process , and that they are made to be finished in C41. To which the response was, " what is C41".
    I WALKED OUT.
    I will be without a computer for a few days as it is going out to get Windows 7 installed.
    But still feel free to comment in the interim.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald
    Ronald- if you want to see square landscapes, take a look in the galleries here. There are plenty of them. For a specific example of someone who shoots square landscapes, try Bill Schwab and his Iceland work for natural landscapes, and his Detroit series for urban landscapes.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin