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.