what you describe is a common problem on a very worn RB67 back. A good tech should have absolutely no problem at all fixing it. Its caused by worn out gears and its such a common problem that its almost something you consider "normal maintenance". RB's and RZ's are normally studio cameras and its so common for them to have 100,000 frames of use. I always had this done locally at a shop that specialized in medium format repair. If you ever consider upgrading to an RZ (something I dont suggest if you really like the RB) is that the RZ has a notorious film advance problem as well and uses plastic gears to cock the shutter and advance the film in one stroke. It is also a "normal maintenance" thing to have the bodies sent away and have the cocking mechanism rebuilt.

talk to your tech first.... if you own one of these cameras you are going to HAVE to have a good tech since you will be needing his services alot. This is common for any mechanically timed camera that recieves consistant use.

do ALL your backs do this? THAT would be very unusual....

having light seals installed would not have fixed the problem and unless you specifically told the tech to check the film spacing then he would not likley have done so.

remember your lenses need to be serviced every 5000 shots as well....and if you have never done it, I HIGHLY suggest it. This is REALLY important on a RB if you arent using it in a studio ( where the shutter speeds dont matter) since the shutter is mechanically timed.

also...one more hint.. DO NOT buy an auto-advance back. These motorized backs are way more problems then they are worth. Just a little FYI....

Thanks for your input! I expected the camera and backs to be somewhat worn. And yes, all my backs evince erratic film advance. If that's unusual, leave it to me to break with the norm.

Thanks also for your advice about the lenses. I just got my 180 mm back from the tech and ran a roll of Velvia 50 through it during a brief glimmer of sunshine (I live in the Willamette Valley of Oregon; sunshine is at a premium here) and the transparencies are tack sharp. I have a 90 mm C lens in being gone through right now so that lens is currently a question mark. I've read numerous allegations of varying lens quality among the earlier RB lenses. It seems to me that the 50 mm was reported as being extremely iffy, varying from one lens to another. Since a 50 mm, or a 65 mmm, would be my next purchase do you have any comments about them?

I really do love this camera. It's like me: big, clunky, old, and slow!

Doug K.

before you even discuss lens quality ...i think its important that you honestly look at what your needs are in terms of print output.

are you going to CONSISTANTLY make 16x20 or larger images? if so, then your techinique better be impeccable and your glass needs to be the best you can get.

if you are mainly making 11x14 or smaller then you have a LOT more wiggle room then your frinds shooting 35mm and 645. Mediumd format lenses simply do not ( as a rule) resolve anywhere near as well as 35mm optics. 35mm lenses HAVE to have fantastic resolution just to allow a normal 8x10 enlargment ( a 10X enlargement of 35mm film). That same print from a 6x7 source is only a 4x enlargement. When looking through a loupe its easy to be critical of the film and think that the image just isnt as sharp as what you expected with 35mm. Believe me...the film is way more sharp than it needs to be to trounce anything that came out of a 35mm no matter how good the glass was..

sorry for the diatribe...but I just want to reinforce that if you arent getting the results you expect with an RB67...and you have had all the gear checked out and know its properly working then ALWAYS blame your technique before you question the gear.

anyway... if you want an honest opinion, Mamiya glass is not the best on the planet. I would have shot Hassy in a second if it werent for the format...I HATE squares :-) The truly amazing performers are the late model 180mm, 127mm and 90mm lenses. The 250mm is a dog in comparison to the 180mm but dont forget..it will still give GREAT results. The 50mm can be a bit iffy. I had one that I loved and one that I hated. I never owned a 65 or a 75. The 37mm fishey I have used ( as a rental) ...and it is great, but I prefer to handhold a fisheye and this camera is not well suited to that approach. The 100-200m zoom is awesome..so long as you are in a studio and its worthless otherwise. The 140mm macro is awesome....but a view camera is much better suited to macro...so I only pulled it out for shots where I needed "slightly tight" shots as opposed to true macro shots.

In the field I always carried a 50, 90, 127, and 180. The reason I carried both normals was because bother were VERY sharp and they are also cheap lenses...and my photography often winds up in the "normal" range...so having 2 slightly different options was nice.

In the studio I pretty much always used the zoom, the 90mm and the 140 macro...but I was doing different things in the studio than i was in the field. I do a lot of general stock.

A real problem with the gear is that it is often so beat up. If you get the chance to buy any new gear or any lightly used newer gear ( very hard because no amature is going to buy a new RB67 Pro SD)..but I had one up until last year and I think the newest crop of lenses was truly amazing in comparison to the older lenses I had with my Pro S

and I share your love with the camera. I have since sold it, but I will always remember it fondly. I loved its quirkiness and its size. ...and "clunky" is a great word to describe it...