Oh dear something real big just arrived in the post eek !

[mustanir]

Oh no! I must not buy an RB67, I must not buy an RB67, I must not buy an RB67, I must not buy an RB67!

As someone who has been using an RB67 for several years now, I find myself frequently deliberating over moving to a different system/format. My main reasons for this are:
a) the size and weight of the thing means that while I can and do travel with it, it is not exactly the easiest camera to do this with
b) no fast glass
c) due to the WLF, I find most of my photos taken with it are noticeably "looking up" at stuff (yes, I could get a prism finder but then, more size and weight!)

I think I have largely adapted my style around the camera and while I think I have a style I like (mostly opting for a wide angle lens), I sometimes wonder if having a more flexible system would help me to "up my game" so to speak.

That said, it is a beautifully simple and satisfying camera to operate. The rotating back is pure genius and the built-in close focus capability (which I personally rarely use) is handy. As for the big negatives, that extra cm over 6x6 makes ALL the difference. 6x7 slides in particular are a wonder to behold and the best I think you'll get unless you move up to large format (OK, 6x9 may well be more awesome but there are so few serious cameras that do this). All in all, I consider the RB67 to be the best compromise between imaging size, quality and cost.

 

[Steve Smith]

As someone who has been using an RB67 for several years now, I find myself frequently deliberating over moving to a different system/format.

As I posted earlier, I am trying to choose between RB67 and Bronica SQ.

My first medium format SLR was a Bronica ETRS which is 6x4.5 format. It was all I could afford at the time. A couple of years later I bought an RB67.

I'm sure that if I had enough money at the time for a SQ instead of the ETRS, I would have been happy with the 6x6 SQ format and would not have bought the RB67.

I liked using the waist level finder on the RB67 and the rotating back meant I didn't have to rotate the camera. This made vertical format shots difficult with the ETRS.

I'm thinking that the same would apply to the SQ. I like the square format (I also have square format TLRs) and I like waist level finders (also normal with TLRs). Only one way to find out I suppose - get one!


Steve.

 

[mustanir]

As I posted earlier, I am trying to choose between RB67 and Bronica SQ.

My first medium format SLR was a Bronica ETRS which is 6x4.5 format. It was all I could afford at the time. A couple of years later I bought an RB67.

I'm sure that if I had enough money at the time for a SQ in stead of the ETRS, I would have been happy with the 6x6 SQ format and would not have bought the RB67.

I liked using the waist level finder on the RB67 and the rotating back meant I didn't have to rotate the camera. This made vertical format shots difficult with the ETRS.

I'm thinking that the same would apply to the SQ. I like the square format (I also have square format TLRs) and I like waist level finders (also normal with TLRs). Only one way to find out I suppose - get one!


Steve.

I would say that unless there is a specific reason why you want another square format camera or don't want an RB, then an RB would seem like the more logical choice given what you say?

 

[Steve Smith]

I would say that unless there is a specific reason why you want another square format camera or don't want an RB, then an RB would seem like the more logical choice given what you say?

The specific reason is that I like the square format and don't really see any advantage to having 6x7 instead of 6x6. I have lots of 6x6 cameras including folders, a Rolleicord, a Rolleiflex and a Yashicamat and I also have four Mamiya C series cameras with a good selection of lenses so I don't really need another camera!

I like the idea of having a 6x6 SLR though and as I can't afford a Hasselblad, I am looking at the cheaper options.

I currently have the highest bid on a SQ on eBay so lets what happens there!


Steve.