Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,834   Posts: 1,582,395   Online: 893
      
Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131418 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 222
  1. #71
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    So this a built in or add on internal metering system?
    Both.

    Built in, in the sense that it was made by Mamiya specifically for the RB as part of the "system".

    Add on in the sense that the RB is truly modular. Just like interchangeable lenses, the finders and prisms interchange ever so easily. Same with the backs, want to shoot 645 for one frame, 6x7 on the next, just switch backs.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,379
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    want to shoot 645 for one frame, 6x7 on the next, just switch backs.

    Whoa. Nobody told me that. I don't want to, but that's cool.

  3. #73
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Whoa. Nobody told me that. I don't want to, but that's cool.
    Eh, why? You could always just shoot it 6x7 and then crop to 6x4.5 when you print it. You'd waste film but otherwise it works fine. If you need a 6x4.5 camera the RB is going to be about the biggest, heaviest one you're likely to find.
    Last edited by Roger Cole; 08-22-2011 at 11:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #74
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I wasnt suggesting that you should Wayne, just making a point.

    Adding a 645 back is a lot lighter and cheaper than carrying or buying a second system, ehh Roger.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #75
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,200
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I wasnt suggesting that you should Wayne, just making a point.

    Adding a 645 back is a lot lighter and cheaper than carrying or buying a second system, ehh Roger.
    Sure it is, but...

    The purpose, as I see it, for having a 645 camera is having something relatively small and light that takes larger images than 35mm on roll film. If you're going to take the RB anyway (bigger and heavier and all) why would you shoot smaller? It isn't like using a rollfilm back on a view camera where you have a much wider selection of film and much less expensive color film or the like (the reasons I use a 6x7 back on my 4x5 sometimes.)

    So yeah, of course it's cheaper, but it's still married to the big camera. And I don't see any reason to shoot a smaller negative on a big camera, when it uses the exact same film. The only reason would be film savings.

  6. #76
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Roger,
    I wouldn't do it, but some things to think about:

    It would save buying 2 camera systems if you wanted to shoot multiple formats without cropping (some people don't like to crop). It can get expensive buying 2 camera systems.

    I think there is also no mechanical 645 SLR out there. I'm probably wrong though. Some people may prefer to shoot an all mechanical camera.

    Plus like you say, you get more shots per roll of film.

  7. #77
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,922
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Eh, why? You could always just shoot it 6x7 and then crop to 6x4.5 when you print it. You'd waste film but otherwise it works fine. If you need a 6x4.5 camera the RB is going to be about the biggest, heaviest one you're likely to find.
    The 645 backs have a couple of advantages:

    1) 16 exposures per 120 roll instead of 10, and at least 15 of them all fit in the same Printfile page ; and
    2) 6x4.5 slides, for those of us who don't have a 6x7 projector but do have a 6x4.5/6x6 projector.

    They are large and heavy for 645 use, but not as large and heavy as taking two camera systems in order to obtain both formats.
    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

  8. #78
    morrishilarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sabah (North Borneo) of Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    39
    I use my 6x7 & 6x4.5 backs. They are great. I love Mamiya RB67.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,379
    Images
    3
    I went and looked at everything. He's got 2 Pro-S bodies, several 120 and 220 backs, a polaroid back, prism finders, "normal" view finders, and 90,127,150,180 and 250mm "C" lenses, and a couple 2x tubes or extension tubes. Since medium format is all new to me, it was all well, pretty new to me. I need to look at it again and pay closer attention to things like condition, fit, and function, because I was mostly kind of overwhelmed by the complexity compared to LF. Plus he had a zillion studio/portrait filters and some odd magnetic bellows type filter holder that he was sure I would need, that I don't think I need.

    I think I want to make an offer on just the bare bones-a body, a (127?) lens, a 120 back, and a finder, because cash is in short supply. I dont think I need a prism finder AND regular finder at first-which should I go for? It would be nice to get a second lens, if not now then later. Seems like the 180 would be the best complement to the 127, huh? if I only get one lens, would 127 be the best choice? I might go back for a second lens, second back, and second finder at a later date, he is not actively trying to sell any of the stuff so it may still be around 6 months or a year from now.

  10. #80
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,922
    Images
    60
    I would suggest a body, a 90mm lens, 1 (2 would be better) 120 back and a waist level finder.

    Make sure the backs are Pro-S or Pro-SD backs (they are labelled as such) and that they have dark slides with them.

    The 90mm, 180mm pair is a good one, especially if combined with a 50mm. A 65mm, 127mm pair is also good.

    I tend to lean to shorter focal lengths. You may tend other wise. 90mm is equivalent to about 150mm on a 4x5 camera.
    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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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