Tariq Gibran wrote:
"Lot's of people" is a vast overstatement. The majority of people who shoot with an RZ do not hand hold it on a regular basis as it weighs a ton and is quite cumbersome off a tripod. To try to paint the RZ as an easily hand-holdable came is ridiculous.
I've seen as many top end fashion shooters hand holding it as many as I've seen on a tripod. There is a famous female celebrity portrait artist that hand holds it...I wasn't overstating it as much as your original statement that says it must be used on a tripod.
Brent Ward wrote:
I've seen as many top end fashion shooters hand holding it as many as I've seen on a tripod. There is a famous female celebrity portrait artist that hand holds it...I wasn't overstating it as much as your original statement that says it must be used on a tripod.
When I started out, I assisted many of these guys...and gals. Believe me, the ones I worked for either had the RZ on the tripod 90% of the time OR held it for a few minutes to take the shot and then handed to the assistant. None of them held it for long periods of time as they would, say, the Pentax 67 or smaller/ligher, less cumbersome cameras.
I never used the word "Must". There are exceptions as you have pointed out but the majority of RZ users are not hand holding them.
A thought on the weight of the 6x7s... I'm a very wimpy girl (very, very wimpy) and I can handhold my RB67. I prefer handholding my camera to using my tripod, but I will use the tripod if I absolutely, positively have to. However, I can usually avoid it with the RB. It is a definite workout for me, though. I'm hoping I can take one of the "very"s off of my wimpy-ness eventually with the muscles I build.
anneraker wrote:
A thought on the weight of the 6x7s... I'm a very wimpy girl (very, very wimpy) and I can handhold my RB67. I prefer handholding my camera to using my tripod, but I will use the tripod if I absolutely, positively have to. However, I can usually avoid it with the RB. It is a definite workout for me, though. I'm hoping I can take one of the "very"s off of my wimpy-ness eventually with the muscles I build.
So you can't take one out in midday, expose for the sky and do fill flash? Is there a common workaround, along the lines of what Spyro said? Can't keep it within sync speed, if sync speed is only 1/30 in that case, right?
Maybe I'm confused?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Focal plane shutter cameras are limited to slower sync speeds vs cameras wich use lens leaf shutters.
So, Pentax 6x7 has a maximum sync speed of 1/30 sec unless one of the optional leaf shutter lenses are used. Most other focal plane shuttered mf cameras are limited between 1/60 sec to 1/125 sec.
The TLR can generally sync at any shutter speed useable (very early TLR's may not be able to sync at all.) as can a number of SLR MF cameras and rangefinders that use leaf shutter lenses. These would include the Hasselblad 500 series, Bronica cameras such as the ETR, SQ and GS series, Mamiya RZ and RB but NOT the 645 without leaf shutter lenses, and the various Rollei's.
This really only becomes an issue if you plan to use flash outside of the studio as you would be restricted to the highest shutter speed useable with flash (preventing synchro-sunlight flash in a lot of situations).
joekraft wrote:
So you can't take one out in midday, expose for the sky and do fill flash? Is there a common workaround, along the lines of what Spyro said? Can't keep it within sync speed, if sync speed is only 1/30 in that case, right?
Maybe I'm confused?
Yes, that is the drawback to having a slow sync speed. Work arounds include using ND filters and/or using high f-stops so that the exposure could be brought down to 1/30 - 1/125 sec. depending upon which camera you are using...but then you would need a more powerful flash. If you do expect to be shooting with flash outside in such situations, I would certainly recommend a camera that uses leaf shutter lenses. There are a few leaf shutter lenses that can be used on the Pentax 67, Mamiya 645 that get around this restriction.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Some 645 systems do TTL flash, I think the Pentax and Mamiyas possibly.
-Ed
The Pentax is pretty much the best for TTL flash as it uses all the 35mm flashes. You can just grab a AF540FGZ from any store, stick it on your P645 and go. The other modern 645 systems (Contax, Hassy, Mamiya AF) and the Mamiya 645ProTL and Bronica ETR-Si do TTL but are pretty much restricted to Metz SCA or Quantum QFlash kit.
The price was right (out and out trade for a 20D kit) on the RB67 kit. There are other options out there for sure that are lighter weight, but my point was just that the weight of the RB67 isn't soooooo horrible that handholding it is out of the question, even for me.
Here is a nice thread on hand-holding the RB's and RZ's. Note the funny pic about half way down. Decked out for shooting, these cameras are close to 7 pounds or so. Call me a wimp, but that's a bit on the heavy side for a camera I'm going to be hand-holding on a regular basis, not to mention the ergonomics of these cameras are not designed for hand held shooting. Can it be done? sure.
I used one on a flip bracket plus a big metz for grip and grins for years. I liked using the pentax 67 better for air to air or air to ground photos.
Who really "holds" the camera all day when shooting all day?
The ergonomics of the RZ really isn't that bad either. I love that camera. Probably why I have a full RZ pro IID system + a full Pentax 67 system in my safe.
The Leaf shutter 165 for the Pentax 67 is an outstanding lens if you really need a 1/500th flash sync.
Thanks Brent for that tip. I'll do some more researcy. The system at the local shop came w/a 55 and a 165. The body was really nice, but it was a little expensive for the set, and if I'm going to pay that much, I def. want the 100 in there.
If I remember right, I have the 35,45,75,100M, & 165 LS left. I would have to check, but I think I'm leaving out a couple more.
The body is a MLU, rough on the outside, but brand new on the inside. I had it rebuilt 4 years ago after a part of the winder inside broke.
The 100 macro is the sharpest Pentax 67 lens I ever have used. It resolves about what velvia will. I've been holding on to them just in case Pentax came out with a digital MF camera, which is looking like it will finally happen!
$895. The price turned me off so quick I didn't even ask details. Though after doing a little more research, it isn't totally out of whack. High, but not totally out there. It included a grip and a couple of filters. Not sure if anything else. Grips are going for >$100 on ebay right now, but you can get them for a lot less, too.
There is a kit on ebay for <$400 right now with a WLF, and the 135, that looked attractive, but it was non-mlu.
I'd really like to see what these lenses could do on my 5D, too. I really like how they are built.
Brent Ward wrote:
Who really "holds" the camera all day when shooting all day?
True...but then the weight will still be something you are dealing with in one way or another (on the shoulder, in the bag/case, etc.) if your shooting all day. Ultimately, it comes down to what your willing to deal with in that regard.
Brent Ward wrote:
The body is a MLU, rough on the outside, but brand new on the inside. I had it rebuilt 4 years ago after a part of the winder inside broke.
The winding mechanism is the Achilles heel of the Pentax 67. That's often the first thing to go down on a well used one.
I'd like a little advice. I have a line on a pentax setup at a price I was looking for, but it is not an MLU unit. I have a landscape project in mind, and I am wondering how to value MLU. Is the mirror slap so great that even on a tripod I can't hope to get a sharp picture without MLU, or when is it really required? If people reply saying that MLU was really only necessary on 5% of their shots or something, I might go for it. Otherwise, I'll hold off. Thanks!
