Pretty much: a quick google says 5.9 lbs for the RB67 Pro, making it within a few ounces of my Shen Hao, and the Shen is a fairly heavy 4x5: there are many that are lighter.
Originally Posted by AeisLugh
The RB67 is a lot bigger than it looks in a photo - like DBP I was very surprised the first time I saw one in the flesh - especially when you consider that the negative is only 1cm wider than my SQA's... Of course, if you are putting it on a tripod then it's size and weight is of little consequence unless you are trekking a long distance with it, and even then an extra 2 or 3 lbs on top of all the other stuff you need to carry is not a major inconvenience.
hrmm...that might be something I'll want to consider then. But with waist level viewing, or doing tripod work, it wouldn't be too bad I imagine. It's not like it holding it up to eye level would be
Originally Posted by Bob F.
Bronica SQ w/80mm and back 3 lbs*
*from my bathroom scale
It's surprising that the RB is selling for less than the 645, considering the price difference was the other way when they were new. If you can you might want to get an RZ, they can use the RZ and RB lenses, so it gives you a little more choice.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone would buy a Bronica over an RB67... Its not just the "1cm wider" negative. The system is just much more capable and flexible, frankly, I think the glass is better, too (although I doubt I could tell the difference, this is one of those academic differences). Not to mention, I have never heard of any mystery illnesses in an RB - I have heard, read and seen enough rants about various Bronicas that it boils down to a fact: the strictly pro-workhorse that is a Mamiya is bulletproof, dead-bolts reliable and acutally pretty resiliant to assaults of human incompetence (which all of launch at our cameras at one point or another - its Murphy's law!).
If a Bronica could be had for half, or even two-thirds of a RB system, I'd say sure. But given the prices...
As to the size and weight issue - yeah its big. A friend of mine and I compared his RB with a prism (which is heavier than a WLF) to his early Arca Swiss monorail - and yes, its heavier (then again, tryhandholding a monorail). But its well designed, rather ergonomic for all but the smallest in stature, and because of that wonderful rotating back, once you get it comfy on your body, you don't have to do any acrobatics with it. I am a farily average sized six footer, but even my wife who is 5'8 and has much smaller hands than mine (thank God!), can handle and shoot an RB with no issues. Lets not make a Leviathan out of the thing - its still a camera, and people use it. Normal, human sized people. Prisms and lenses and backs still have to be attached by mechanical means - throwing them at the camera and hoping they'll go into orbit around it does not happen. NASA has never used one to accelerate space ships. When it lays around the house, it does not lay around the house... All the ones I have seen do not have their own area codes. To the best of my knowledge, Duece Bigolow has never exclaimed "That's a huge bitch!" when seeing one. Unlike the great wall of China and parking lots full of unsold KIA's, it can not be seen from outer space. My cat does not fit inside one - and its a small cat.
Anyway, take with a grain of salt as always
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
A decade or more ago, when 'pro' 35mm SLRs were becoming ever more bloated, I upset a representative of A Major Manufacturer at a trade show by saying that I preferred smaller, lighter cameras, so I used medium format. Stand a Hasselblad next to some of those giant Nikons or Canons...
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Mamiya 645 series. They are more directly comparable to the Bronica ETRS – and they're still being made (fingers crossed), and the latest even have autofocus should you want to go down that route.
If I were in the market for a new MF system (which I'm not) and had the money (I haven't :-( ) then it's no contest: Hasselblad every time!
Originally Posted by gnashings
How do you figure that? The only thing the RB/RZ can do is rotate the back. At least off the top of my head. I guess the bellows focussing might let the average lens focus closer but I haven't compared.
OTOH if you really wanted to you could fit an ETRSI out with all the parts have have a camera very much like a big 35mm. Okay the winder would be slower but other then that you'd have everything. Metering prism with average and spot. The slow winder. TTL flash. Plus with the grip on I can carry a fully outfitted ETRSI with one hand.
Good point. My cousin is shopping for a d***SLR, and keeps putting it off because he wants something as small and inconspicuous as his favorite OM-4 and 24mm combo. (Lenses are also an issue, obviously). One has to wonder why they build d***SLRs so big, it isn't as if they need it for the motor drive. Even the Olympus ones are much bigger than an OM, and one would have thought they would build something Pen sized.
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
Total Cost of Ownership-Return on Investment
Nick, it has a lot to do with making a list of lenses and accessories that are available for the RB series, and then looking at the price in the used market. Every day, I use a program called "Auction Sieve" to filter through a number of different bay auctions. Stuff I use, or am building out, like Mamiya or Beseler. The range of accessories and the prices are almost unbelievable for either. When looking to make the MF jump past my Yashi 124, I looked at Mamiya, Bronica, Hassy, and the price points, variety, service considerations, etcetera, offset any considerations to economize on weight or size.
Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
I find myself becoming a dinosaur, as I have been in this game since the mid-1960s. Many years were spent hanging with old pro's that owned studios, freelanced, operated custom labs, or worked for papers. In the whole lot, only one owned a Bronica system, and it was for his own use, and ended up selling it and building out another rail system. As they told me, and I am discovering, Peter's statement about these is correct. They may be largish, but they are dependable tanks that rarely have any issues.
Perhaps it is the econ development specialist in me, but even in camera equipment I am looking at TCO-ROI. Besides, I have yet to go anywhere with my RB that the bystanders have not been in awe...
something witty and profound needs to be inserted here...