Can you tell me a little more about Bronicas and MF in general?

[cigrainger]

The ETR SI specifically. The bodies with 75mm f/2.8 lens and 120 backs seem to be going for very reasonable prices on KEH in EX condition. I'm thinking about getting into MF in the next few months and I've heard Bronicas are great. I really just can't find much information about these. Are Bronica more known for their rangefinders? How does this model compare to the Mamiya M645? How's the glass? What would you recommend with that kind of budget (~$600)?

I'd be using it mostly to shoot landscapes, but really that would include cityscapes as well. I'd probably also use it for set-position street photography, and maybe some more "detail" shots around the city. Mostly I'd be trying to achieve "fine art" photos in and around Edinburgh that I can use for large prints that I could sell.

[Steph]

I don't have experience with the Bronica ETRS/ETRsi but I use a Bronica SQA (6x6) and the quality is great. I use 50mm and 80mm lenses and get great results. Apparently, the 40mm and 150mm lenses are also very good. From what I read elsewhere the build quality is better on the SQ cameras compared to the ETR cameras.

I would go for a Bronica SQA or SQAi as I like square pictures (but of course I am biased). Avoid the Bronica SQ (older camera without mirror lock-up) and maybe the SQB (metering prisms cannot be used on those). If you don't like square picture, you could go for a Bronica GS (6x7).

I think you cannot go far wrong with any Bronica SLRs as they are very good value and offer great performances.

[cigrainger]

I don't have experience with the Bronica ETRS/ETRsi but I use a Bronica SQA (6x6) and the quality is great. I use 50mm and 80mm lenses and get great results. Apparently, the 40mm and 150mm lenses are also very good. From what I read elsewhere the build quality is better on the SQ cameras compared to the ETR cameras.

I would go for a Bronica SQA or SQAi as I like square pictures (but of course I am biased). Avoid the Bronica SQ (older camera without mirror lock-up) and maybe the SQB (metering prisms cannot be used on those). If you don't like square picture, you could go for a Bronica GS (6x7).

I think you cannot go far wrong with any Bronica SLRs as they are very good value and offer great performances.

Square pictures are fine with me. Using more of the negative is better in my opinion too. The SQA looks to be readily available on KEH in EX condition for much the same price, and obviously if it has better build quality, I'm all for that. Thanks for the help!

[cigrainger]

Wow, I just read that with the Bronica SQ-Ai, you can use a 35mm panoramic back. Is that common? That would be awesome.

[fmw]

I think it is fair to say that the Bronicas and Mamiyas are comparable optically and mechanically. The later models of the 645 Mamiyas (645AF model and later) have plastic bodies and are therefore quite a bit lighter. The Bronicas are heavier. I use Mamiya equipment mostly because I've used it for decades and I like the later model plastic bodied cameras. My 645E, as an example, is lighter than my Nikon D80 (with battery installed) and the lenses are lighter, too, for the most part. I used RZ's in the old days but I wouldn't subject myself to that now that I'm an amateur again. The Mamiyas also have a broader system mostly because it has always been a more popular brand.

It's pretty hard to go wrong with any of them. I'm sure you'll get great images with whichever model you choose. If you find one that is cosmetically pretty, it will most likely have less use and that's a good thing.

[newrmdmike]

hmmmmm. . . well, i bought a mamiya 645af with 80mm f/2.8 and 120 back in ex+ or ex condition from keh for $600 and would recommend one to most anyone interested in getting into mf photogaphy if they are happy with the 645 format.

[newrmdmike]

oh, and i've looked at lens charts that put mamiyas very close to zeiss, especially with the 80mm.

i havn't heard anyone say that they have ever used a lens that they could tell was sharper than the mamiya 80.

[Alpha]

No offense, man. But you must not have been around much. Let's see. How about a LF Biogon. That would kill any mamiya glass. Oh, and any of the glass made for the Rollei 6008 would do it too. I'd bet that the Pentax 120 Macro could as well. The list goes on..

Now that doesn't mean the Mamiya is bad. I've shot with it, in manual and auto focus, as 80mm is the stock length on the 645's as you said. It's a great lens. But I wouldn't call it the sharpest thing I've ever seen.

[newrmdmike]

! no offense taken, thats really what i've been told, and thats the only experience i have to go on.

the chart did put mamiya and pentax really close if i remember right.

EDIT: (oh, and i havn't been around much!)

[nealjpage]

I've got a Bronica ETRS with the stock 75mm lens. I've been very happy with it. I'm not sure about the quality of it vs the SQ series, but it's built like a tank and is really easy to use. Go for it.

[cigrainger]

Thanks for the input guys. I'm really new to MF photography, but its looking really good, and I could possibly fit it in my budget along with a Canon P Rangefinder -- I'm DONE with 35mm SLRs for several of my own reasons. Mostly because when I want a "portable" camera, I'm happy with just a fast 50mm for street photography, don't need or enjoy entensive telephoto, and I find 35mm SLRs too big and bulky for street photography the way I do it. I also like the speed of rangefinders, no mirror blackout, and more image than just TTL. No mirror slap and a more gentle shutter means 1/30 or maybe even 1/15 shutter speeds without much camera shake as well, rather than bottoming out at 1/60.

Anyway, thats a lot and there are other personal reasons. My point is, I'm getting away from 35mm SLR. The MF I'm going to get is going to spend most of its time on a tripod. I'll probably get a wide angle, normal, and macro lens for it. I've seen MF macro of flowers and such, and I LOVE the idea of being able to shoot macro shots and blow them up to huge proportions. I'll use the MF with slow film on the smallest aperture (f/64?) for cityscapes and shots of landmarks around Edinburgh so they're pin-sharp and the people disappear. I also intend on using it for nature landscapes and "fine art" photography so I can blow it up. Maybe get a few shots of Edinburgh from original angles and make some prints to sell during the Edinburgh Fringe Festival this summer.

Anyway -- I guess that gives an idea of what I'm trying to achieve. I don't need Hasselblad quality, although a friend who goes to RISD says she thinks of Bronica on the same level as Hasselblad.

If you have any advice, suggestions, etc, let me know. I like the idea of using as much of the negative as possible, but as I said I'm looking at a maximum budget of about $600 or so. I will already have a handheld light meter, so no need to budget that in. I suppose I will need a heavier tripod than the one I have now though...

[fmw]

No offense, man. But you must not have been around much. Let's see. How about a LF Biogon. That would kill any mamiya glass. Oh, and any of the glass made for the Rollei 6008 would do it too. I'd bet that the Pentax 120 Macro could as well. The list goes on..

Now that doesn't mean the Mamiya is bad. I've shot with it, in manual and auto focus, as 80mm is the stock length on the 645's as you said. It's a great lens. But I wouldn't call it the sharpest thing I've ever seen.

No offense, man, but have you tested all these lenses or are you guessing? I assume you are since you are "betting" on a Pentax lens. The reason I say so is that I have tested many Sekor lenses and Zeiss lenses over the years and my conclusions wouldn't match yours. I could give you "list goes on" also but you wouldn't care for the conclusions.

I don't have any experience with the 80mm AF Sekor but I do own an 80mm f2.8N Sekor for the manual 645 and it is every bit as straight, bright, contrasty and sharp as the 80mm f2.8 Zeiss Planar. No, I'm not guessing. I've tested them both.

[Alpha]

I own the SMC 120 Macro. It's the sharpest lens I've ever shot with. I have seen photographs taken with the Zeiss glass for the Rollei, and the LF Biogon, and in terms of sharpness, they basically put everything else to shame that I've seen. There's a good reason they're so expensive.

[fmw]

I own the SMC 120 Macro. It's the sharpest lens I've ever shot with. I have seen photographs taken with the Zeiss glass for the Rollei, and the LF Biogon, and in terms of sharpness, they basically put everything else to shame that I've seen. There's a good reason they're so expensive.

And how, pray tell, is that a comparative analysis of Mamiya lenses? I'm not knocking the Pentax lens. I have no experience with it. What I'm saying is that, since you haven't tested the Mamiya macro, you are guessing that the Pentax is better. Same with the Zeiss lens.

Let me give you an example. The Rollei SLR does the focusing for its lenses. That means the Zeiss lenses for the Rollei have no moving elements. The only thing that moves is the shutter. That allows the designers to really nail the corrections. So a Zeiss lens for the Rollei SL66 is actually a better performer than a comparable Zeiss lens for a Hasselblad since that lens has to have a focusing helicoid. So comparing the Zeiss to a Mamiya 645 isn't comparable. Compare it to a lens for the Mamiya RZ67. The RZ67 does the focusing for its lenses just like the SL66. That's comparable. Is the Zeiss better than a comparable Sekor lens made for the RZ67? I don't know since I haven't tested them side by side. You don't know either. I've tested Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad side by side with comparable lenses for the RZ67 and the Mamiya lenses outperform the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses in corner sharpness and distortion just like one would expect. I would expect the same thing comparing SL66 and Hasselblad lenses.

It is common for people to be enthusiastic about what they own. However, that isn't a very good basis for a comparison. If you say X is better than Y, then explain the test and define the performance parameters that are better. Telling me X blows Y out of the water because it is the best macro I've ever used isn't very meaningful, is it? How many macros have you tested? Which ones specifically are comparable to the Pentax? How is the Pentax better - specifically how is it better? What performance parameters are you comparing and how did you do the comparison?

See what I mean?

I'm really not trying to beat up on you, Max. I'm just trying to rein in the enthusiasm a little in the hopes of getting more objectivity in some of your statements.

[cigrainger]

Okay so anyway -- I'm trying to choose between the Bronica SQ-ai and the Bronica RF645. I know the RF has a smaller negative with vertical alignment, and it's more expensive, but no mirror slap, I can carry it around, it has good built-in metering, and it's more natural coming from a 35mm guy. I know the SQ-ai has a bigger negative, better lens selection, the option for different backs, and it's cheaper. I have this sneaking feeling that if I got the RF645, I'd use it a lot more than the SQ-ai because it would be more convenient. I just worry about the system's limitations down the line. Then again, being able to use medium format for more pictures would make me very happy, so being able to carry it around conveniently would be a big plus, especially for some of my travel photography.

[Steph]

The mirror slap is not an issue with the SQA and SQAi as they both offer mirror lock up. I think the real argument is about handling and convenience; taking handheld shots with a SQA/SQAi is a bit of a challenge and it is easier with a rangefinder such as the RF645. I would have to agree with you; the RF645 is a better camera for travel photography and I would love to own one to carry around in places where I cannot take the SQA.

Unfortunately, here in the UK it is fairly hard to find a RF645 for less than $600. They sell for more than £400 (around $800) for a body and a 65m lens. Alternatively you could look at Fuji GA645/GS645 with fixed lens (45 or 60mm lens).

[cigrainger]

The mirror slap is not an issue with the SQA and SQAi as they both offer mirror lock up. I think the real argument is about handling and convenience; taking handheld shots with a SQA/SQAi is a bit of a challenge and it is easier with a rangefinder such as the RF645. I would have to agree with you; the RF645 is a better camera for travel photography and I would love to own one to carry around in places where I cannot take the SQA.

Unfortunately, here in the UK it is fairly hard to find a RF645 for less than $600. They sell for more than £400 (around $800) for a body and a 65m lens. Alternatively you could look at Fuji GA645/GS645 with fixed lens (45 or 60mm lens).

Thanks Steph. I suppose you're right about mirror slap -- I was just thinking that handheld it might make a difference. I've heard the Fuji isn't that great, and I'd like the option to be able to switch between normal and wide angle. Ideally I'd like to have a macro lens as well, but I suppose Bronica doesn't have one for this camera yet.

Does the negative size make that much of a difference? The RF645 can take both 120 and 220 rolls right? Would I miss the option of using a polaroid back or 35mm pano back? For any 645 owners, is the vertical alignment "weird"?

I'd be getting the camera here in the States (I'm home from school in FL for the summer), but even here KEH is selling them for around $1000. I'd be laying out all of my money on it, but I'm starting to think that the portability/convenience of the camera would make it worth being broke for a little while. It's aperture priority autoexposure and reportedly nice rangefinder may even make it a viable, if much larger, option to using a 35mm rangefinder for my street photography for a while.

Do you think the slow f/4 maximum aperture of the RF645 lenses is a problem as far as making portraits pop out from the background or hand holding the camera?

I have to say, I like the fact that the 65mm f/4 lens is the equivalent to about a 40mm normal lens on 35mm cameras. I've been shooting with the Pentax-M 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens and LOVE that focal length. Wider than 50 and tighter than 35 = awesome.

[fmw]

The difference in format can be fairly meaningless if you wind up with rectangular rather than square images. If the issue is really image quality then get a 6X7 format camera. That will give you even larger negs and transparencies than 6X6 and is also a rectangular format. The nice thing about 6X6 is that you can take everything with the camera oriented one way. You never have to turn it 90 degrees. But if you crop to a rectangular format you lose all that extra film real estate. The 645 is probably more practical for nearly everyone since it is smaller and lighter and provides more frames per roll of film. The lenses should also be touch cheaper since they can provide a smaller angle of coverage than 6X6.

I used to use 6X7 format. Now that I'm an amateur I have no wish to subject myself to all that size and weight so I've moved to 645. My current camera weighs less than a typical DSLR and is only slightly larger. It weighs a whole pound less than my old Nikon F4.

The 645 format has about 4 times the image size on the film than 35mm. That's a big difference.

[cigrainger]

Thanks fmw. I was thinking that for an amateur like myself the difference is negligible, especially for rectangular enlargements. If I could afford it, I'd probably get a Mamiya 7II. But for now I'm thinking the Bronica RF645 sounds like the perfect camera for me.

[Steph]

Ideally I'd like to have a macro lens as well, but I suppose Bronica doesn't have one for this camera yet.

That is not going to happen. The RF645 was discontinued a few years ago and there are only 4 lenses available (45mm, 65mm, 100mm and 135mm). Anyway, a rangefinder is probably not the most practical tool for macrophotography. Also be aware that the rangefinder cannot be calibrated for both 100 and 135mm lenses. It is either one or the other depending on how the camera left the factory or if it has been modified at a later stage. From what I read, it is quite difficult to focus with the 135mm as the rangefinder base is not quite long enough. This might not be an issue if you only want the wide angle and standard lenses.

The RF645 can take both 120 and 220 rolls right?

Yes.

Finally, you can find the complete specifications of the RF645 here (http://www.tamron.com/bronica/prod/rf645.asp).

[cigrainger]

That is not going to happen. The RF645 was discontinued a few years ago and there are only 4 lenses available (45mm, 65mm, 100mm and 135mm). Anyway, a rangefinder is probably not the most practical tool for macrophotography. Also be aware that the rangefinder cannot be calibrated for both 100 and 135mm lenses. It is either one or the other depending on how the camera left the factory or if it has been modified at a later stage. From what I read, it is quite difficult to focus with the 135mm as the rangefinder base is not quite long enough. This might not be an issue if you only want the wide angle and standard lenses.



Yes.

Finally, you can find the complete specifications of the RF645 here (http://www.tamron.com/bronica/prod/rf645.asp).

Thanks for the info. I actually read about the telephoto issues and whatnot last night, and I kind of figured that a rangefinder's not going to be the best idea for macro photography. Neither is telephoto really... I think this is the perfect camera for right now, allowing me to have rangefinder/35mm convenience or better with a medium format negative. Later on I can think about maybe like a 6x7 MF SLR system with some telephoto, macro, and/or shift lenses and some interchangeable backs.

[Alpha]

And how, pray tell, is that a comparative analysis of Mamiya lenses? I'm not knocking the Pentax lens. I have no experience with it. What I'm saying is that, since you haven't tested the Mamiya macro, you are guessing that the Pentax is better. Same with the Zeiss lens.

Let me give you an example. The Rollei SLR does the focusing for its lenses. That means the Zeiss lenses for the Rollei have no moving elements. The only thing that moves is the shutter. That allows the designers to really nail the corrections. So a Zeiss lens for the Rollei SL66 is actually a better performer than a comparable Zeiss lens for a Hasselblad since that lens has to have a focusing helicoid. So comparing the Zeiss to a Mamiya 645 isn't comparable. Compare it to a lens for the Mamiya RZ67. The RZ67 does the focusing for its lenses just like the SL66. That's comparable. Is the Zeiss better than a comparable Sekor lens made for the RZ67? I don't know since I haven't tested them side by side. You don't know either. I've tested Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad side by side with comparable lenses for the RZ67 and the Mamiya lenses outperform the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses in corner sharpness and distortion just like one would expect. I would expect the same thing comparing SL66 and Hasselblad lenses.

It is common for people to be enthusiastic about what they own. However, that isn't a very good basis for a comparison. If you say X is better than Y, then explain the test and define the performance parameters that are better. Telling me X blows Y out of the water because it is the best macro I've ever used isn't very meaningful, is it? How many macros have you tested? Which ones specifically are comparable to the Pentax? How is the Pentax better - specifically how is it better? What performance parameters are you comparing and how did you do the comparison?

See what I mean?

I'm really not trying to beat up on you, Max. I'm just trying to rein in the enthusiasm a little in the hopes of getting more objectivity in some of your statements.

I think that you're nit-picking. I know that the Zeiss glass for the Rollei looks better than the Blad. That's why every time I mentioned the Zeiss glass, it was along with the Rollei name. Perhaps macro vs non-macro isn't a fair fight, but the claim being made was to the effect of "I've never heard anyone say they saw a sharper lens than the Mamiya 80mm." All things being equal, I think that the 120 Macro produces sharper images. Like I said, I've shot with both. Unless you wanna get into the specifics of lens resolution, in which it should be obvious to someone of your knowledge that a biogon has higher resolution than an 80mm Mamiya, it's not a question of how sharp the lens itself is. It's a question of how sharp an image can be taken with the lens, which is a different story. In fact, your explanation of why the Zeiss glass for the Rollei is sharper than Zeiss glass for the Blad proved my point.

[fmw]

I think that you're nit-picking.

Yes, I was nitpicking but for a reason. I was trying to make a point about presenting enthusiasm and opinion as facts. Apparently the point was lost on you. I'm sure you're right about the Pentax lens. I have no experience with it. Take care.

[Alpha]

I didn't intent to pit the 120 macro against the 80mm mamiya. I intended simpy to explain that there are sharper lenses out there..objectively speaking in terms of lens resolution and camera mechanics, as well as my personal opinion. I didn't mean to offend you.

[fmw]

For Pete's sake, I'm not offended. I could care less what one person prefers. I could care less about the the lenses in question. You're still missing my point. My point is that you have a bad tendency to post opinion as fact and do it with an overbearing attitude. I was trying to calm you down a little. It isn't the lenses I'm addressing. It is you. Got it?

I wasn't comparing the Pentax macro to the Mamiya 80, you were. But I will provide you with a theoretical answer. I have never compared the two lenses nor have I ever used a Pentax MF lens. Theoretically, however, the Pentax would be sharper close up and the Mamiya would be sharper at infinity. Why? Because that is true of almost any comparison of a macro lens to one that does not incorporate macro focusing in the design. The brand of lens isn't the issue. Macro lenses are optimized for close focus and normal lenses for infinity focus. It is a matter of physics and lens design. Both companies have competent designers. No big news there. I'm pulling out of this thread. Sorry to all of you who read it.

[mysteryscribe]

Weighing in again where no man dares to go. At least not any man in his right mind. People we make way the hell to much of the hardware these days. A camera is a light tight box with a hole in it. The image is made by the bit of hardware standing behind it. You work to your equipment because no piece of equipment is going to be all things to all people.

Now there is a whole new arguement for you.

[fmw]

Weighing in again where no man dares to go. At least not any man in his right mind. People we make way the hell to much of the hardware these days. A camera is a light tight box with a hole in it. The image is made by the bit of hardware standing behind it. You work to your equipment because no piece of equipment is going to be all things to all people.

Now there is a whole new arguement for you.

No question about it. Great photographers make great images with any hardware. Poor photographers make poor images with the best hardware available. What matters is the result, not the journey.

[mysteryscribe]

Couldn't have said it better myself and frankly the most fun I ever had was struggling to do jobs with crap equipment. It challenges the mind and the creative side of it especially.

There is a great deal of satisfaction in being able to say I made my avitar (which hangs in about three houses as 11x14 images) with a fifty dollar point and shoot digital camera. God I loath to admit it is digital.

[newrmdmike]

so everyone can see a lens comparison click here (http://www.mamiya.com/cameras2.asp?id=1&id2=2152) and you'll see the link on the right.

anyways, i only meant with lenses in that range, i didn't mean to put the mamiya 80 against every lens in existance, and for other formats. the whole point was to show that there are lots of people out there who can't tell the difference (i've never seen the difference). and lets not forget the price difference here.

anyways, check out that lens comparison.