Related Links:
Bronica 135mm Lens Recall!
Bronica RF645 Review (Mike Johnston)[link updated 2/2003]
Mamiya 7 6x7cm RF
Rangefinder Pages
The Bronica RF645 rangefinder is a welcome entry in the compact medium
format rangefinder arena. The goal is to deliver a top quality optical
system paired to a convenient and compact electronic camera design. The
dual autoexposure modes provides both auto-aperture and program exposure
modes.
The three lenses provide a modest three lens kit which should meet
the needs of many users for a light weight traveling kit. The 45mm, 65mm,
and 135mm lenses on 6x4.5cm are roughly equivalent to 28mm, 40mm, and 80mm
on a 35mm SLR. Keep in mind that a 6x4.5cm image can be cropped or
enlarged, so the 135mm lens images have more potential for enlargement,
while keeping the lens size compact.
Compared to a similar cost Leica CL
system with standard 3 lens kit (28/40/90), the RF645 will deliver
significantly higher quality enlargements simply from film size
differences. Yet the camera is relatively compact, quiet (thanks in part
to a shutter pre-charging system), and easier to use with advanced
electronic features. Unlike the focal plane 35mm rangefinders (e.g.,
Leica), the leaf shutter lenses offer flash synch to 1/750th second.
The 6x4.5cm format permits up to 16 exposures from 120 rollfilm, and 32
exposures from 220 rollfilm (presuming this capability, not overtly stated
in published specifications).
Compared to a 6x7cm rangefinder (Koni-Omega, Mamiya 7), the 6x4.5cm image
requires circa 25% more enlargement on its limiting axis than the larger
6x7cm images for standard paper sizes. For most of us not doing many
larger poster sized prints, this difference in quality won't be critical
against the difference in weight and size of the larger 6x7cm
rangefinders.
Compared to Fuji's line of rangefinders, the Bronica RF645 is not
autofocus, nor does it sport a zoom lens option. But the ability to use
interchangeable lenses is a major plus for travelers and others who might
feel too limited by single fixed lens Fuji offerings.
The British Journal of Photography of Feb. 7, 2001 has an article (p.14-15)
by Adam Woolfitt reviewing the Bronica RF645 camera. He notes a rear curtain of fabric
protects the lenses when changed. Three lenses with leaf shutters were available as of
introduction. You have to turn the camera on its side for landscape format, otherwise,
it is portrait oriented. The camera is easily switched between 120 and 220 films providing
18 or 36 exposures, has a self-timer, and can be set to provide +/- 2 stops of compensation
to the meter in 1/2 stop steps. The SP20 flash has a high price for its modest performance.
The camera is just slightly less money than the Mamiya 7 (6x7cm RF) in the U.K. (which is rather
cheaper than in the USA), but it is more expensive than the Fuji GA645Zi zoom lens AF
offering in 645.
I just had an opportunity to work with the Bronica RF645 over the weekend.
I had two good afternoons with the camera, and shot three rolls with it.
The build quality is outstanding. I worked with the 45mm and 65mm lenses
(have been told the 135mm will be delayed). Both lenses I shot with are
SHARP. The contrast and colors were also very good. In showing off the
slide film to others they were impressed with the overall quality. The
camera is very quiet. It has a new self-cocking shutter. The sound is a
bit different than what most of us are accustomed to.
The accessory flash is small but powerful. Very easy setting for over and
under exposure of the flash. The controls are well placed on the on the
camera. This makes the camera very easy to use and adjust on the fly.
When compared to the Mamiya 7II, the RF645 is lighter overall. The weight
savings comes from lighter weight lenses. The controls on Mamiya 7II
require removing the camera from the eye (at least for me). The RF645 will
automatically place the film curtain when changing lenses, something that
requires a separate action on the Mamiya. Having played with the Mamiya, I
have forgotten to reset the shutter curtain, slowing the shooting a bit.
The top shutter speed on the RF645 is 1/750 in program mode at f/8 or
smaller. At this point in time Mamiya has broader range of lenses covering
the 35mm equivalent of 21mm to 100mm; while the RF645 covers 27mm, 39mm,
and 80mm.
The thing that needs to be remembered is that the RF645 is a 6x4.5 format
and the Mamiya 7II is a 6x7 format. While there is need to compare it to
the Mamiya, it is a different class of camera. The photographer will have
to decide if the 6x7 negative is better than the 6x4.5 format. For myself
I did some b&w prints a couple of years ago with some 6x4.5 and 6x7
negatives that I shot for a test. There was a slight difference in the
11x14's; but not enough for me to justify the cost and weight. A closer
comparison would be the Fuji GA645zi and the GA645w. These are for the
most part auto-focus only cameras, with no interchangeable lenses.
I would summarize: The RF645 is a great camera for those looking for a
quiet camera with interchangeable lenses in the 6x4.5 format. Very quick
to use (one step for changing of lenses). Very economical in the film area
(16 exposures on 120 film). Very easy to use flash, fill-in flash is a
breeze; just select the amount of exposure compensation. Controls are well
placed. I would place this camera in the same class as the Lieca CL when
it was introduced. Remember the CL basically had the 28mm, 40mm, and 90mm
as the official lenses.
(Full disclosure statement: I work for Penn Camera in the Metro DC area.
The views and opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of
Penn Camera and/or of its suppliers. The weekend mentioned was a Bronica
Camp sponsored by Tamron/Bronica. I have not received any consideration
for the review of the RF645.)
"Kann" [email protected] wrote
> Is there anybody has experience on this MF?
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Chip L" [email protected]
[1] Re: I had the Bronica 645 RF in my hands
Date: Sun Feb 11 2001
These will be the the intial lenses. Alot depends on the market receptance
as to whether there will be other lenses I guess. The 135 will be shipped
later this spring according to Tamron/Bronica.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Darrell A. Larose)
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001
[1] Re: Bronica RF 645
greg ([email protected]) writes:
> ajacobs2 wrote: > >> Got a chance to play with it at the PMA....one word... >> >> *** Awesome *** > > A definite cure for Leica envy, but what is the price for the system?
Less than the SQ-Ai. The Canadian rep showed us the camera in our
shop about a month ago, said it would be under $2800.00 CDN or for
you Americans, about $1800 USD. I just looked, and guess what...
B&H lists it at $1799, the 45mm f:4 @ $670 and the 135mm f:4.5
is $600. So the kit would be: $3070 USD. I handled one and I agree
it was sweet, light and quiet.
Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "David Glos" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001
[1] Re: Bronica RF 645
....
In other words, cheaper than a new M6, and a selection
of 35mm equivalent focal length lenses, although, of
course, the lenses are much slower. You also get flash
sync at all shutter speeds, and a native vertical
format, which suits me just fine. I'm not sure I would
want it as my only MF system, but it sure would be nice
to add to the kit. I also think Bronica/Tamron thought
a bit on their range of focal lengths; the have a nice
spacing to the trio. It is one of the few new toys that
I honestly look forward to handling. Kudos for an
innovative addition to the MF landscape at a rational
price.
David Glos
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001
From: ajacobs2 [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF 645
....
Since Bronica had tech and service people at the show answering
questions I asked also about the mini-flash and they know almost
everybody will be popping a Metz 45 handle mount ( since this will
appeal to many ETRsi and SQ owners who have a dedicated Metz module) if
things get serious, or a standing studio setup. With the range of the
flash not exceeding the normal distance range for the 45-65-135, they
felt keeping it compact was primo. Also one of the techs said making
flashes is tougher than making cameras where there is already an
available flash market. The wanted to keep the walkaround compact size
of the unit.
I wouldn't want a big flash hanging over the top, the Metz 45 with
diffuser should be killer with this rig with one of my inexpensive Metz
battery packs I build. Light too...the Q Turbo plus six batteries in the
handle is heavy so I made my own.
Alan
The Gadget Meister
http://www.aljacobs.com
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001
From: Gerald Zani [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bronica
Hello,
At the bottom of this message are some comments about the new Bronica
RF645 that I took from the Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
discussions. You've already posted much of them, but there are a few more
from today.
But what I would really like to see is some discussion start about the
Contax 645 and its autofocus lenses, although I admit the pricing is
astronomical. It is a benchmark MF camera yet your excellent site avoids
discussing it completely.
Best Regards from an avid MF user and a reader of your site,
Gerald Zani
Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada
In other words, cheaper than a new M6, and a selection of 35mm equivalent
focal length lenses, although, of course, the lenses are much slower. You
also get flash sync at all shutter speeds, and a native vertical format,
which suits me just fine. I'm not sure I would want it as my only MF
system, but it sure would be nice to add to the kit. I also think
Bronica/Tamron thought a bit on their range of focal lengths; the have a
nice spacing to the trio. It is one of the few new toys that I honestly
look forward to handling. Kudos for an innovative addition to the MF
landscape at a rational price.
David Glos
About 1800 US is what I was quoted, the fit and finnish was superb. Just
felt right in the hand and at first the shot I have is with the flash.
If you want to see the one i used just email me and I'll Jpeg the foto
with the flash made for it.
Had an opportunity to play with one for a weekend before PMA. I agree
whole heartedly. The exposures were good, and the sharpness of the slides
were fantastic. Makes me wish I didn't have a full ETRsi kit (40, 50, 75,
135, speed grip, AE III, and rotary prisim {what more could I want?}). The
flash for it makes it very easy to do fill flash, just wish it were more
powerfull.
Since Bronica had tech and service people at the show answering
questions I asked also about the mini-flash and they know almost
everybody will be popping a Metz 45 handle mount ( since this will
appeal to many ETRsi and SQ owners who have a dedicated Metz module) if
things get serious, or a standing studio setup. With the range of the
flash not exceeding the normal distance range for the 45-65-135, they
felt keeping it compact was primo. Also one of the techs said making
flashes is tougher than making cameras where there is already an
available flash market. The wanted to keep the walkaround compact size
of the unit.
I wouldn't want a big flash hanging over the top, the Metz 45 with
diffuser should be killer with this rig with one of my inexpensive Metz
battery packs I build. Light too...the Q Turbo plus six batteries in the
handle is heavy so I made my own.
Alan
The Gadget Meister
http://www.aljacobs.com
From: "Chip L" [email protected]
There is a need among some to compare the RF645 to the 7II; but they are
different products. As you noted one is the 645 format the other is 6x7.
Yes, both are rangefinders with interchangable lenses. The end decission
needs to be what format do you want to shoot in and what price do you want
to pay. This is not to begin the discussion about US pricing verses
pricing in the UK. There are people that will not want to purchase
overseas.
The RF645 is better priced in the US. Also if you are a student taking a
full time college program in photography the savings can be greater for
either system; though the edge belongs still to Bronica.
As to the technical advatages of the RF645:
The camera is a little smaller and lighter than the 7II. It also have
program exposure that the 7II does not. Also the shutter curtain that is
needed when changing lenses is automatic on the RF645 (very nice!). There
is a semi-dedicated flash that makes fill-in flash a breeze. The shooting
in the vertical format (some love it, others hate it.)
From: Zeljko Kardum [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Bronica RF 645
Chip L wrote:
> There is a need among some to compare the RF645 to the 7II; but they are > different products. As you noted one is the 645 format the other is 6x7.
I agree. But my humble opinion is that there is no sense to fiddle with
big and clumsy camera (i.e. larger than 35mm) if there is no
considerable improvement in picture quality.
If so, than we could compare approximately same size (more or less)
cameras.
Between those two same size cameras one gives 6x4.5 size pictures and
other, Mamiya 7 gives almost twice bigger picture 6x7 cm.
Obviously, pictures taken with Mamiya will be technically much better
(assuming that lens quality, photographer skills etc.. are the same).
There is a huge difference in quality between these two picture formats.
If you think that there is no huge difference in quality between 6x4.5
and 6x7 than somebody could use the same argument for comparison between
35mm and 6x4.5 cm.
> Yes, both are rangefinders with interchangable lenses. The end decission > needs to be what format do you want to shoot in and what price do you want > to pay. This is not to begin the discussion about US pricing verses pricing > in the UK. There are people that will not want to purchase overseas. > The RF645 is better priced in the US. Also if you are a student taking a > full time college program in photography the savings can be greater for > either system; though the edge belongs still to Bronica.
How big is the gap?
> As to the technical advatages of the RF645: > The camera is a little smaller and lighter than the 7II.
Key word is "little"
> It also have > program exposure that the 7II does not.
So what? There is AE automation on Mamiya 7. It's not just manual
metering camera.
> Also the shutter curtain that is > needed when changing lenses is automatic on the RF645 (very nice!).
There is also shutter curtain on Mamiya 7 (although you have to press a
button to activate it)
> There is > a semi-dedicated flash that makes fill-in flash a breeze.
I'm not familiar if there is a semi-dedicated flash for Mamiya, but Metz
probably would do the job nicely.
BTW did you read "small print" for Bronica RF flash automatition: "with
dedicated Speedlight shutter speed is locked at 1/60 sec. below EV10"
> The shooting in > the vertical format (some love it, others hate it.)
Not a big advantage.
To shot horizontal format you have to flip Bronica.
Bottom line
If there is no significant advantage in size and weight between this two
cameras, and one produce much larger and more useful image, there is no
sense to buy Bronica.
I would opt for Bronica RF if camera is significantly smaller or much
easier to use than Mamiya 7.
No hard feelings, maybe I'm stupid, but I can not see why this new
Bronica is such a good camera.
Kardum
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Bronica RF 645
For lots of USA buyers who don't buy overseas, the Bronica may be a good
bit cheaper in what is their major market vs. competition from Mamiya 7
hurt by the high USA prices for USA warranteed Mamiya 7II gear;
while I prefer 6x7, I recognize that it is hard to find slide projectors
in this format, and I shoot a lot of slides, so 6x6 or 6x4.5cm is easier
if you are a slide fan(atic) ahem ;-) esp if doing pro slide shows, as few
automatic 6x7cm projectors out there...
the "extra" quality of 6x7 over 6x6/6x4.5 is about 25% on the limiting
axis, per Ernst Wildi in Medium Format advantage [depending on target
paper sizes/borders..]; that 25% greater enlargeability only becomes a
factor at rather large enlargement factors, and if you do mainly 8x10 or
11x14 rather than 20x30, the differences of 25% in quality may not matter
or be discernible to most viewers or buyers etc. Compare this to 100%+ in
switch to medium format from 35mm...
finally, you get 16 vs 10 shots, which is a serious difference in costs
per shot, frequency of reloading, and amount of film you have to carry esp
if you are on a trip to foreign country etc.
Personally, I"m waiting for Fuji to bring out an updated G690 6x9cm
rangefinder or "texas leica" (or until I locate an affordable user G690)
but different people "see" in different formats too, so some folks might
prefer familiar 6x4.5cm they already use and love to learning to see 6x7?
In short, they will probably sell a number of these cameras, esp. if the
lenses are as good as claimed by reviewers, and have room to cut costs
under Mamiya in USA major market when they decide to do so. Bronica was
one of the main forces behind 645 (ETR), so it makes sense to take
advantage of that base and popularity with upgrading 35mm SLR shooters.
With the revival in rangefinder Leica clones interest, I suspect Bronica
is hoping to tap this market with a better quality result than even a
Leica can provide, while not being too big a jump for 35mm shooters (as
6x7 would seem to most of them, yes?) If they do this, they could sell in
major numbers as a cheaper, better electronic Leica killer, IMHO ;-0)
grins bobm
-------------------
Gerald Zani Manager of demonstrations Department of Physics Brown University Box 1843 Providence, RI 02912 (401)863-3964 [email protected] http://www.physics.brown.edu/users/staff/zani/index.html http://www.physics.brown.edu/Studies/Demo/
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Bronica RF645
My test report on the Bronica RF645 is in the April issue of
Shutterbug which was mailed to subscribers last week and should
be on news stands in another week or so.
I used the camera with the wide angle and normal lenses for about three
months for this test. The 135mm telephoto is not available yet, and I
will do a follow-up test on it when it becomes available.
I found the camera very quick to use, with exceptionally good lenses and a
very good rangefinder. If you're used to 35mm you may find the vertical
image orientation takes some getting used to, but I adapted pretty fast.
Since most of my photos are shot as verticals I loved this aspect of the
camera.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Bronica RF645
I didn't have a Mamiya 7 to handle side by side, but based on memory of
using that camera the Bronica did not strike me as substantially lighter.
The Bronica is still a big camera, although they tell me they worked to
make it as compact and light as possible. It is all metal, so ought to be
rugged.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off Topic - Bronica RF645
> From: Matthew Phillips [email protected] > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 > Subject: RE: [Rollei] Off Topic - Bronica RF645 > > Speaking of... reading the spec sheet for the Bronica camera system, I > notice the dedicated flash has a diffusion panel to cover the wide-angle > lens. But since the wide-angle requires a separate finder that sits in the > flash shoe, how does one use the flash with that lens? Does Bronica have > some dual-shoe adaptor planned?
You don't really need the wide angle finder since the camera's finder is
about right if you compose out to the very edges. I didn't much care for
the finder, anyway, and put it away and forgot about it after using it
a couple of times.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT Bronica RF645
Bob,
The AF was sooooooo SLOW. I could Manually focus faster. Talk about
stupid control layouts, they have 2 ways to set shutter speeds and
exposure compensation but you can't set exposure compensation separately
from flash compensation as once the flash is attached the exposure
compensation becomes flash comp. I confirmed this. Very foolish.
Canon and Nikon have nothing to worry about. Sharp lenses, slow AF, hard
to find controls, = crummy camera.
Peter K
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Bronica 645 vs. Super Ikonta
Just realize that with the Bronica there is a 65mm lens and a 45mm lens
and soon a 135mm. So you have wide, wemi-wide and telephoto. Nothing in
the middle like a 75mm. If you can live wirth that the Bronica is a
superb camera with easy to find and use controls and all the features a
pro photog could ask for.
Peter K
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: [Rollei] OT: Bronica 645 vs. Super Ikonta
....
Almost everything about the camera looks right, no problem with the lens
spread. So far, the only (potential) negatives are:
1. the camera's reliance on CR2 batteries, which are expensive, don't last
too long and are relatively hard to find (no matter how well prepared you
think you are, there will inevitably come the day you must search
frantically for an emergency supply, so in batteries, ubiquitous is best)
and
2. the vertical orientation of the viewfinder when the camera is held in
its normal operating position may present an problem. Do most eyes
normally perceive vertical compositions? If not, the camera will have to
be repositioned to what is for probably most of us a secondary position.
From my experience with 35 mm and other hand held rectangular format
cameras, the vertical holds are not as inherently comfortable and stable
as the horizontal. This is of no concern in tripod use, but I believe
much of the 645 RF appeal is for hand holding.
IMHO, the original Mamiya 6 had it right. A lifetime of Rollei, of
course, influences my partiality for square format. My practice, unless
going for the square, is to automatically crop H/V in my mind while
framing the photograph. Next best thing to an automatically revolving
back.
Allen Zak
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
From: John Kufrovich [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Bronica 645 vs. Super Ikonta
Just read an article in the latest CameraArts. A compliant by the author
was the different filter sizes. The 45 and 65 use 58mm, while the 135mm
uses 62mm.
Could use a adapter ring on the 45, 65 but the adapter will prevent you
from using the bayonet hood.
jk
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Bronica RF645
Bern wrote:
> I saw it very briefly at a trade show last Oct. Looks > pretty good.Good ergonomics. Nice selection of lenses. > My only problem is the format. For me, its sort of > like Half-frame 35.
Really? That's funny, I've always seen 645 as sort of a "perfect" format,
significantly bigger than 35mm and amounting to just a cropped 6x6 (which
I always crop anyway). Plus, the 16 shots per roll, the fact that the
whole roll fits nicelly on a contact sheet, the fact that the contacts are
big enough to "read" without further enlargement, and the fact that the
negative is still small enough to use relatively short focal length lenses
on the camera and relatively affordable and available enlarging setups,
always seemed like a package of perfect compromises to my mind. The only
thing that could be improved would be if 32-frame rolls were
cassette-loaded and sprocket-holed like 35mm film, but that's asking too
much in the twilight of film photography.
The only weakness of the RF645 (conceptually, I mean--I haven't seen one
yet) is the lack of a single f/2.8 lens. Even with today's films, I still
regard f/2.8 as a sort of practical minimum. f/4 is awfully slow. Maybe
it's okay with a 6x7 neg, but for the much smaller 645 neg it seems like
at least one faster normal lens would be in order. I mean, the RF645's
65mm lens is a full two stops slower than the normal lens for the Contax
645.
Michael B. wrote:
> If I shot a lot of MF work I'd rather go with the Bronica and all three=20 > (Tamaron) lenses, (or a nice Mamiya 6MF.)
When I reviewed the original Mamiya 6 for the old _Camera & Darkroom_
magazine, sources at Mamiya told me that it had been specifically
developed with wedding photographers in mind (that was the reason for the
original's otherwise inexplicable square format) and the company was
surprised that it was, at the time, proving more popular with
photojournalists and art photographers than with wedding guys--only a
minority of customers were wedding shooters. If you noticed, most of the
early ads for the camera made a point of its suitability for wedding
photography.
--Mike
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF 645
Chip L
[email protected] writes
>The big thing with the RF645 is the cost for US users. In regards to your >question about UK vs. US cost; the UK cost is $1900US vs. about $2500US in >the states. This is before any US rebates or Mamiya Day Sale 10% discounts >that maybe available. The lenses here in the states run at least $1500 each >(to the best of my memory). This compares to $1799 for body and lens on the >RF645; and between $600 and $700 for the other lenses for the RF645.
In the UK the 645RF & 65mm costs about the same as the 7II & 80mm,
although this is the early price (manufacturers RRP) for the 645RF (it
may drop when stock is more widely available).
So for me it's a particularly tough choice! Personally the RF645 looks
more like a camera to me (I never did like silvery finishes on cameras).
By the way, both with lenses are cheaper than a Leica M6 body.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Bronica 645 RF--Review by Mike Johnston
This review by Mike Johnston, former editor of _Camera and Darkroom_
comes from the Rangefinder list via photo.net, with permission at the
bottom for reposting, so I thought I'd bring it over here. Enjoy.
David
------------------------------
Completely on-topic for once, I'd like to post a brief report of the
new Bronica RF645 compact rangefinder that I shot with yesterday. I
only gave it a quick trial--they had one on display at Reimer's in
Milwaukee. I left my Leica hanging hostage from the salesguy's neck
and took their RF645 outdoors for a stroll.
My friend Michael Reichmann posted a comparison of the Bronica
RF645 and Mamiya 7 on his excellent website luminous-landscape.com
that tilted decisively towards the Mamiya. I wrote a full review of
the Mamiya 6 for the old Camera & Darkroom, briefly owned a Mamiya 6,
and am very familiar with the Mamiya 7. I like them both--they're
great cameras--but my own reactions tilted just as decisively, and
just as quickly, towards the Bronica.
I think our different reactions have to do with shooting style.
Michael shoots landscape, while I'm more of a people-and-passing-scene
type of photographer. (Wow--I've never actually been able to
pigeonhole my style of photography so briefly before. {g})
As a black-and-white negative film shooter, I like everything
about 645. My philosophy has always been that the smaller the negative
is, the easier the camera is to handle in the field; the larger the
negative is, the easier (or perhaps I should just say the more
rewarding) it is to make the print in the darkroom. As a shooter of
only medium-level skills but a darkroom whiz, I've always chosen to go
with 35mm--it gives me the advantage where I most need it, and I enjoy
(and am up to) the challenge of struggling with the small negatives in
the darkroom. The 645 format tilts the balance a bit more towards
fine printmaking, without much cost in the field. It's a nice
compromise.
It's also practical--16 645 negs fit on to a single proof sheet,
yet are generally large enough to "read" as contacts. I even like the
aspect ratio (shape) of the neg. I like the fact that the 645 negative
is still small, allowing the use of shorter lenses with better d.o.f.
(for roughly the same angle of view on 6x7 as the RF645's 65mm normal
lens, a lens of 80mm focal length is needed).
So now you're aware of all my many prejudices
Another camera I tested for the now-defunkt C&D was the Fuji
GS645S, a plastic, manual rangefinder 645 I'm sure many of you are
familiar with. Like the Fuji, the Bronica's viewfinder is "turned on
end" relative to what 35mm shooters are accustomed to. Its native
orientation is vertical. I really liked the old GS645S's vertical
format orientation back when I used that camera. Even when I shoot
with 6x6cm square format, I tend to crop to a vertical 645-sized frame
much of the time. I find it a natural way to see. Michael Reichmann
wasn't pleased with this vertical orientation, since he says 75% of
his shooting is horizontal. For me it tips more towards verticals. So
my reaction is the opposite of his.
The RF645 is reasonably small and it's certainly well-balanced.
It's not heavy--about the same weight as a Nikon F100. Just for yuks,
I hoisted a full-dress Canon EOS-1v alternately with the Bronica, and
the 35mm Canon was easily both larger and heavier than the
rangefinder. The Bronica has a sizeable handgrip that felt good to me,
one that leaves the hand in a comfortable position relative to
virtually all the meaningful controls.
I was impressed with both the feature-pack and the control
layout. Bronica endowed the camera with just about every feature I
want in a camera, from aperture-preferred AE to exposure compensation
to a cable release socket, but they didn't load down the cameras with
fanciness and fripperies that I'd rather not pay for--no laser beams
or whirring micromotors or miniature fireworks displays in the finder.
The controls on the camera back are particularly nice--everything you
need within easy reach of the thumb (AE lock and a nifty, handy lever
for exposure compensation), with locks only where you need them (on
the ISO setting, for instance). Bronica gets high praise for
ergonomics.
The Canadian magazine Photo Life inexplicably gave the RF645 poor
marks for the viewfinder. This has created an instant stain on the
camera's reputation around the internet. That's a shame...because
they're full of it! I've used many different varieties of rangefinder
camera in both medium format and 35mm, and the Bronica's finder ranks
right up there among the best. In fact, compared directly to my M6, it
scores highly- -it's as bright, while also being less cluttered,
easier to peer into, and easier to focus. No problem here.
A great feature of the RF645 is the viewfinder information. You
can read on Tamron's website what-all it shows; what I was concerned
with is whether it's visible, and whether it's distracting. Well, it
is, and it's not. You see the shutter speed and aperture big, bright,
and bold even against a bright sky, but it's just far enough away from
your direct view that it doesn't impinge on the image area or make an
annoyance of itself. This is the best viewfinder information readout
on any rangefinder camera that I'm currently aware of. They got this
just right.
The shutter release is something I didn't quite get a complete
handle on. On the negative side, it seems a little less razor-sharp in
its responsiveness than the best (remember, the camera I've been using
is an M6, peerless in this category). There's a hint of a "gear-train"
kind of feel, as if the shutter is setting off a chain reaction of
mechanical events in the camera. However, it appears that the camera
does not "dry-fire"--that is, you can't fire the shutter without
having film in the camera. Because I was taking pictures with my film,
I didn't look to see when the shutter actually fires relative to the
overall shutter "feel." It's possible there's some slight shutter lag
going on, or it's possible it fires instantly and what I was
perceiving as lag is merely the leaf shutter recocking itself after it
fires or something like that. I don't know yet--I'll have to wait for
a more extensive trial before I sort this out.
On the plus side, the shutter is very quiet, as you would expect.
Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's not quite as quiet as the
Mamiya 7, but in the same league, and it's quieter than the old Fuji I
mentioned, which fires with a sharp "snick." I have no complaints
about the noise level.
I should add that I'm really grateful for the focal length
choices on both the Mamiya 7 and the RF645. Both the 80mm on the
former and the normal 65mm on the latter are about equivalent to 40mm
on 35mm, far and away my favorite focal length lens on 35. I got
turned on to this focal length when I interviewed Sally Mann for C&D.
She mentioned that she used to do professional photography around
Lexington, Virginia, where she lives, and that, for her, 40mm seemed
"just about perfect." She had used the Olympus OM Zuiko 40mm f/2. That
lens, along with the 40/2 Summicron-C and 40/2 M-Rokkor, subsequently
became my favorite lenses. Forty millimeter has got a more relaxed
view on 35mm than a 50mm, yet it scrubs off that hint of wide-angly
feeling that 35mms have. Some people won't think this is anything
special, and I won't argue with them. For me, however, both these
normal focal lengths are just to my own taste.
The whole camera has a decidedly pleasing, well-integrated feel
overall. The smoothly-focusing lens connects precisely to the the big,
bright rangefinder focusing patch; the lens falls very comfortably to
hand. This is an outstandingly easy and comfortable camera to focus.
And the overall balance of the camera is great. The easy, very
comfortable feeling of the focusing coupled with the big, bright,
easy-to-see viewfinder makes the camera seem welcoming and unfussy.
The main selling point of the Leica M6 to me is that it's so pleasing
to shoot with--it's just nice to use. It seems to invite you to take
it out and play with it. I'm betting the Bronica would share a fair
amount of this property. Only time would tell that tale, of course.
Overall, I got a feeling of technology, and especially
ergonomics, being at my service, instead of being at the service of
the sales brochure--like the camera design was deliberately aimed at
real, practicing photographers rather than gadget freak camera nuts.
Finally, as has been a tradition with Bronica for many years,
value for the dollar is very high--for a "suggested street price" of
only $1,800 you get both camera and lens, and the associated flash and
the other lenses are equally inexpensive. This seems right in line
with what I'd want to pay for something less than a studio camera,
and compared to other medium-format options it verges on being a
steal. Remember that economies of scale don't factor in nearly as much
with medium format, which is a big part of what keeps prices so high.
Given this reality, $1,800 is more of a bargain than maybe it appears
at first glance if you don't shoot medium format now--compare prices
on medium-format cameras in the B&H pages in POP and you'll get a
better idea how inexpensive the RF645 really is.
It appears that a few people on this list have a low opinion of
magazine reviewers...and I used to be one. I suppose I should take
umbrage at this, especially given the amount of crap I've had to take
from unhappy manufacturers over the years. But I don't, really.
Anyway, I know that this is a positive note; but that's because I was
really pleased and seriously impressed with this little camera. In
fact, I liked it so much it took me by surprise--I'm really good at
nitpicking flaws in cameras, as any of my photo-friends will heartily
attest to. Granted, rollfilm is a minority format, and rangefinders
(except around here {g}) aren't everybody's cup of tea. With those two
caveats, the Bronica looks like something quite special. I'm just
worried about my credit card at this point.
--Mike
P.S. Please feel free to repost this modest little report
anywhere on the internet where you think it might reach interested
parties. I don't mind. I'll update it if/when I get to put more time
in with the RF645. Insofar as I'd be of any help, questions can be
directed to [email protected].
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
New revision up: see
http://luminous-landscape.com/rf645.htm
--Mike
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
Here is a news flash: Bronica is recalling the 135mm RF lens because of
poor performance.
I applaud Bronica for pulling back a problem product, but this may affect
your decision to purchase the product. I certainly affected mine.
FWIW,
Eric
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
I remember Pentax recalling lenses 30 years ago because of
poor performance. They blamed a supplier that had a fitting
that was the wrong depth for an element or something like
that. But you wonder what percentage of lenses are checked
for quality. Pentax did not find the defect. Camera 35 did
during testing.
From: [email protected] (ZorziM)
"Marcus" [email protected] writes:
Although this has got to be a classic "apples and oranges" comparison,
I've got to think that your definition of "street photography" and mine
have got to differ. Maybe the fact that you "carry a very light tripod"
might be a clue! Where the Leica M excels is in fast spur of the moment
shooting where you rarely have time to focus, prefocusing the lens around
where you expect to be shooting. The Konica's autofocus is, frankly, too
slow for this kind of work because by the time it's figured out where to
focus the moment you've looked for has passed.
You basically can't do this type of work as well with the Bronica,
just because the longer focal length medium format lenses are going to
usually need a bit more precision in focusing. I suppose it CAN be done,
but somehow I feel more comfortable with quick, discreet, horizontal
format shooting and the "native" vertical format of the 645 cameras seems
to me to be slower and more obvious to people as subjects (the Bronica
seems very nice BTW: I've used an ETRs for years and also use a Fuji 645
rangefinder which you can pickl up for a song nowadys if you're lucky!).
If your idea of street photography involves more slow and deliberate work
I see no advantage for the Leica. IF print quality is your aim, the
larger negative is going to always be better (and no flames,
please....I've been shooting with Leicas for over 30 years and a slew of
small, medium and large format cameras for at least 20!) .
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Well, sort of. It's still listed in the specs, but if you go to the
pull-down menu labelled "Index" in the flash presentation and select
"RF645 Interchangeable Lenses," it only features two lenses--the 45mm and
the 65mm.
The 135mm, which used to be part of that page, is gone.
--Mike
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
I was able to borrow a Bronica RF645 for a couple of days last week. My
local dealer got his Bronica rep to drop off his demo camera for a week
and several customers got a chance to use it. I was able to shoot about
6 rolls of B&W film and my comments below are from examining the
negatives with a loupe and making about 5 8x10 prints and 1 16x20 print.
I plan to make more prints but haven't had a chance yet.
Anyway, I investigated several things from Mike's review. You can fire
the shutter without film. You need to press the ME (multi-exposure)
button on the back of the camera first, then the shutter will fire. To
make it work, either hit the ME button and then the shutter button
before the meter display times out (if you wait too long, the camera
forgets the ME setting) or just hold the ME button down while hitting
the shutter.
By playing with this and looking at the shutter, I found that most of
the sound you get during an exposure is the shutter recycling itself
after the exposure. It's a strange sound, different from any other
camera I've tried, but not very loud. There is a noticable delay between
pressing the shutter button and the shutter opening. It's not bad if
the camera is awake (push the button halfway down first), but the camera
seems to take maybe half a second to wake up when you first touch the
shutter button and unfortunately doesn't stay awake very long (5-10 sec?
I didn't really check this). This is true even when the camera is in
manual exposure mode. It is very definately an electronic camera.
The meter seemed to be very accurate in my use. It also keeps working
in very low light levels (outside at night, I got some readings like -1
stop or -2 stops wide open with the shutter speed set to 1 sec with ISO
of 400). Seems like a camera designed in the days of Delta 3200 would
allow ISO settings above 1600, but you can set the ISO to 1600 and use
the exposure compensation to get higher settings unlike some cameras.
I really liked the 65mm lens I tried. Like Mike, I also found the focal
length ideal for a rangefinder lens. I have a Leica with a 50mm and even
though my most used focal length on SLR's has this angle of view or even
longer (58mm on 35mm or 110mm on 6x7), I have often found 50mm too long
on the Leica and looking through the framelines for 35mm seems a bit too
wide. The 65mm on the Bronica falls nicely between these two.
I shot one roll of Pan F+ with the camera on a tripod (though the camera
screams out to be handheld and I doubt I would actually use the camera
this way very often). My first impression when looking at that roll was
that this lens was the sharpest medium format lens I'd ever seen. The
largest prints I ever make are 16x20's so I tried one print this size.
It still looks very sharp, but I still think the larger negative from my
Bronica GS-1 with it's somewhat less sharp lenses holds up better in
prints this large, especially from slow films like this. I think 16x20's
from fast films that show a little grain would actually look better from
this camera even though I really like Pan F+ in 6x7. In large prints
from 35mm I also prefer TMZ to TMX so take that into consideration. I
haven't made any 11x14's yet (my most common final print size), but from
looking at the 16x20 would expect 11x14's to look great. I rarely use
any color film in medium format, but generally feel that color negative
film holds up better in bigger enlargements than B&W. I'd expect the
RF645 to work great for 16x20 or even larger color prints. I just find
it on or a little past my personal limit for B&W.
I thought the bokeh of the lens was really nice. The finest details
just smoothly dissappear, but the structure of larger elements (like my
splitrail fence) appear recognizable, coherent and look good. This is
very much the same look I get from the 100mm and 110mm lenses on the
Bronica GS-1. A very impressive result from a lens this sharp. The bokeh
I generally find most appealing is usually found on the least sharp
lenses, but the Bronica lenses I've tried seem to produce good bokeh and
sharpness at the same time.
I do wish the lens would focus even a few inches closer. I can't
remember having a problem with the 28" limit on my Leica (which actually
focuses a bit closer than that), but the 1.0 meter setting on the
Bronica is a hard stop at 1.0 meter and several times when I picked up
the camera, my subject was a few inches closer than that.
I also would have liked a little faster lens, but found the camera to be
handholdable at fairly slow speeds. I shot one roll as a test at slow
speeds and found all but 1 of my 1/30th exposures usably sharp and about
half of my 1/15th exposures equally sharp. The lens is definately usable
at f/4 in my opinion.
I am seriously considering buying this camera. I've also arranged to
borrow a Mamiya 7 and plan to compare them (I've never used the Mamiya
before though I have seen prints from one). From what I've read, I don't
expect to like the Mamiya 80mm as much at wide apertures, but if I'm
wrong it's going to be a hard decision. For what I expect to use this
camera for (handheld use while carrying the camera for long periods of
time), having almost twice the exposures per roll is probably more
important to me than better 16x20's. I don't expect any differences
other than normal lens "look" and negative size between these two
cameras to be that significant to me (but you never know). Even cost
isn't a big deal as used Mamiya 7 or 7II with an 80mm are pretty close
to the new price of the Bronica kit with the 65mm.
John Sparks
From Rangefinder Mailing List; Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:02:10 +0000
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
This is really more germaine to the rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
group; I'm cross posting.
> Is it true that if you buy the 135mm lens for this camera the lens and
> camera have to be calibrated in a workshop????
Bronica discontinued the 135mm lens for reasons of poor focus accuracy. A
couple of suppliers have an arrangement which will custom calibrate a
matched lens and body pair so that it works correctly. I can't see
anything wrong with that as long as it works correctly.
My understanding is that Bronica will release a new 100mm lens as
replacement this Spring.
> I am selling a pile of gear to get one of these.....I would hate to make a
> mistake. The UK price in dealer stores seems to be between 820-870, down
> from �1449 or similar. I wanted the 16 exposure 6x4.5 gives me...or I'd got
> a Mamiya7 mark2
I was considering one of these cameras and like it a LOT. I'll likely buy
one later in the year (decided to go with a digital camera first). By
comparison to the Mamiya, I found it much handling, more comfortable in my
hands. In addition to the increased number of frames per roll, I like the
added DoF and more compact body, natural portrait orientation of the
frame. The 645 negative size is more than adequate to my needs for
scanning and printing... I have some stunning 13x19 prints made with 645;
can't see the difference between them and prints I've made with 6x7 or 6x9
negs and that's my max size print on my equipment.
Godfrey
From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
From: "Paul C. Brodek" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Newish Rangefinder Gadgets From Japan
Hi All,
There's a couple of interesting rangefinder-specific gadgets hitting
the market in Japan.
Kenko introduced a polarizing finder/filter system for rangefinders.
The "PL Finder" is essentially a shoe-mount polarizing filter, maybe
25mm in diameter, printed/stamped with a position scale. The finder
is used together with lens-mount circular polarizing filters stamped
with matching position scales ("Circular PL Vernier"). You look
through the finder, rotate to the desired degree of polarization,
then transfer the position reading from the finder filter to the lens
filter. The filters are sold separately, in 39mm, 40.5mm, 43mm and
46mm sizes. List price is 4,800 yen for the finder (US$ 36.00) and
8,000 yen for the filters (US$ 60).
Looks to me like it would be more convenient to setup than the Leica
polarizer, as it eliminates the need to deal with setscrews and
adaptor rings. After it's installed on a lens, the Leica polarizer
would probably be faster in use. Overall I would guess that, if using
in the field with multiple lenses, the Kenko would be faster and more
convenient.
Haven't seen anything on this on THK's (most likely US distributor)
website. Here are the links to the Japanese pages:
http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/news/0110161.html
http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/news/0110162.html
Bronica introduced a double accessory shoe for the Bronica RF that
includes a hot shoe. I wouldn't think there'd be any TTL flash
compatibility with Leica, but if you needed to use both a finder and
an automatic/non-TTL flash on your Leica/Hexar/Bessa this might let
you do it without having to use a synch cord. List price is 15,000
yen ($115.00).
Bronica also introduced an interesting polarizing method for the RF.
A 43mm polarizer threads into a bracket which clips over the
viewfinder, covering the finder window. Position scale settings from
the 43mm polarizer are transferred to a 58mm lens-mount polarizer with
matching scale. Nothing really directly applicable to our beloved
Leicas here, but I thought it was an interesting solution to the
rangefinder polarizing issue. Links to the double shoe and polarizer:
http://www.tamron.co.jp/rf645/rf645_acc.htm
Enjoy,
PB
Paul C. Brodek
Paul C. Brodek
Hillsdale, N.J. U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
from bronica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bronica VX300 35mm rangefinder query
According to the information in "Bronica, The early History and
Definitive Collectors Guide" by Tony Hilton, the VX series of cameras
were shown as a prototype at Photokina in 1980. However it seesm that
the cameras were kept under the counter to only be shown to selected
customers. The camera series appears to have never been released on
the market at all.
According to the info in this book R Gunz & Co in Australia have a
copy of the press kit for this camera which was made up for the
possible release.
Beyond this info I can be of any more help.
Cheers
Simon
--- In Bronica@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:
> Has anyone seen one of these Bronica VX300 35mm rangefinders for sale? I
> just saw an announcement for them in Modern Photography of August 1980 p. 49
> and photo, 1/500th sec leaf shutter, multiple lenses, CdS, optional WLF/prism
> Looked nifty, but I've never seen one for sale. Did these make it to
> market overseas but not in USA? or never sold anywhere, didn't reach market?
>
> thanks bobm
From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:42:36 -0000
From: "chil3131"
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica 645 Rangefinder vs Fuji GA645?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002
Amr Ibrahim [email protected] writes
> With Bronica stopping its lens range to the 100mm, I would like to
> suggest keeping to the Fuji GA645Zi model.
The 135mm appears to be still available from some dealers who claim to
be able to 'match' an individual lens to an individual camera. I haven't
looked into detail regarding this, and I'm not exactly sure whether it's
a definite fix for the problem or just a way to shift some 135mm lenses
in a more controlled way.
The RF645 has fallen dramatically in price in the UK over recent months,
now the body and 65mm lens cost around the same as the GA645Zi.
>� Its zoom range is 55 to
> 90, well built and with�legendry performance.
My biggest problem with the zoom is it's slow apertures, especially at
90mm.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From: [email protected] (Gregory Bates)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica 645 Rangefinder vs Fuji GA645?
Date: 17 Mar 2002
...
Sam: The Bronica RF is a wonderful camera. I have had mine for 6
months and have made some great pictures. The camera can be set to do
manual exposure, aperture priority, and complete auto exposure. I use
it mainly in manual exposure as I like more control of the final
image. It comes with the standard 65mm lens which covers more of what
is used as the standard lens in other cameras and is great for street
or landscape. I also have the 45mm lens which is similar to the 28mm
of the 35mm camera and have recently sent the camera to the UK to get
fitted for the 135mm lens. The compact flash unit does a great job for
fill or small group pictures close in. The meter, in the manual mode
has been excellent and have made some great exposures. All adjustments
to the aperture or shutter speed can be made in the viewfinder which
shows the settings and the meter reading without lowering the camera.
This camera will not have the spontaneity of the Fuji with the auto
focus and zoom lens, but will be great for anyone wanting a wonderful
"Leica like" tool for making photographic art. A sample of an image
made with this camera can be seen at:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=521101
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002
From: "Wilson, Paul" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Konica RF vs Bronica RF
I think the answer is very obvious. The Konica will win on all fronts
except image quality where the Bronica will blow it out of the water.
The Bronica doesn't have a motor drive, needs to be turned on it's side for
a horizontal picture, is harder to load and isn't constructed as well
(though it is pretty good). You also can only get 2 or maybe 3 lenses (they
sell the telephoto in England) for the Bronica where as you can get a lot
more for the Konica. The Bronica is also bigger but it's close to the
smallest MF camera I've ever seen.
Paul Wilson
....
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002
From: Kevin Alexander [email protected]
Subject: RE: Leica/RF645 comparison?
I will say this: I have a bronica RF645 and it is a well made camera. It
gives you the option of going full manual, aperture priority, or full
program. While the negative size is not as big as the hassy, if you are
not printing square prints (10x10, etc), the extra negative area is
less of an advantage. While the hasselblad lenses are sharp, the
Bronica lenses are sharp enough for most uses as well. It's a good
camera, appears to be very well made (no problems so far) and I would be
more likely to carry it around then a hassy and a lightmeter. It's about
the size of a 35mm SLR (Nikon F100 or Canon A2E) and if you are looking
for a good medium format rangefinder, it won't be a disappointment.
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645 with 45mm lens
I contacted Bronica in US to ask about this. They will provide a
modification to the viewfinders of previously sold RF645. I seem to
remember that the only cost involved would have been shipping, but I may
be wrong about that.
I looked into getting the RF645 in the UK, since the prices are much
lower. If the 135 mm is bought at the time of purchasing the body, then
it can be calibrated to the body. Apparently, this is important to
assure accurate focusing.
I have not heard of any "B" model, but I was told that bodies made after
the introduction of the 100 mm lens, will be set-up with 100 mm
framelines. I suppose you could check the manufacture date of the body
at purchase.
This is a fairly new system. Similar to the Mamiya 6, and later 7, they
may decide to release future versions with enhanced features. Perhaps a
Panorama adapter for 35 mm film, and other accessories would be easier
to add to the system. They could also add even wider lenses, with more
external viewfinders.
I am waiting to see what develops for the future of this system. The two
I have handled at a store showed a high quality, easy to use camera. It
is a shame that they did not put a longer rangefinder baseline, or
greater magnification in the rangefinder. They could always produce a
viewfinder magnifier, like Leica with the 1.25x. The current one is
great for shooting wide angles, but it would be nice to have more short
telephoto capability for portraits. 135 mm and 150 mm seem much better
for portrait work.
The ERTSi is a much more versatile system, though it has been around
longer. I hope that Bronica continue to develop the RF645, since it
looks to be a nice start.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html
Dan wrote:
> Bronica has recently introduced a 100mm lens for this camera. Does
> anyone know if a bright-line frame for this lens shows up in the
> view-finder? I've looked at Bronica's literature and it doesn't say.
>
> I know the 100mm lens was not part of Bronica's original lens lineup
> for the RF645 and was developed as a last minute replacement for the
> 135mm lens which was withdrawn from production. As a result, the
> camera designers may not have put a frame in the viewinder for the
> 100mm lens.
>
> If the 100mm frame wasn't in the orignal design but was added later,
> should I be looking at a RF645"B" (or "Mark II" or "what-ever") body
> to work with the 100mm lens. I'm thinking of getting this camera and
> this lens.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645
Danke sehr! Good information, and a nice review. I agree with your comments
about the 135 mm, and I think that UK purchase may be the best option.
Supposedly, the 100 mm allows closer focus than the 135 mm, which is claimed
to make the difference. In case you may be interested, here are some shots
from the US importer site:
http://www.tamron.com/bron/bron_lens/rf100.htm
compared to the older 135 mm (through the web archive project):
http://web.archive.org/web/20010502012651/http://www.tamron.co.jp/english/rf645/rf645_gallery.htm
The unusual aspects of this are the need to be a bit closer to your subject
to get the same framing. I also noticed that the 135 mm images are a bit
stopped down, perhaps to avoid focusing errors. There are only two photos
using the 135 mm in the old brochure I have.
I do very little macro, and I like my 35 mm gear a bit more for tele, though
I agree that the RF645 is a more limited use. It would be nice if Bronica
really took advantage of the rangefinder format, and offered some much wider
lenses.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645
Forgot to mention that KEH often has manuals for cameras. Try out this:
http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=BR&cid=35&sid=newused&crid=3475201
or just browse through the listings for manuals. They should not have a problem
to ship overseas.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: "Robert" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which Camera To Buy?
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002
...
I'm Canon EOS user. I own a few L series professional lenses which are
superior quality very sharp and inexpensive if you compare to Leica prices.
Once I was curious what the camera is Chinese make "Seagull" it costs couple
of hundreds dollars so I bought it and was very surprise that picture
quality, shadow details (bigger size of film) are better than (or close to)
Canons. Right now my first Camera is Bronica 645 which blows Leica and Canon
in every way. It is very good quality camera and inexpensive if You buy it
in UK at http://www.jessop.co.uk/ (half US price). I really recommend this
camera. Used lenses You can buy for a few hundred dollars.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002
From: Jeffery Smith [email protected]
Subject: RE: Unsolicited Testimonial: Bronica RF645
The 18 shots per roll works well for me, as sometimes I change subjects
and wish I didn't have 37 frames to kill. The aperture priority and
program modes on the Bronica are pretty idiot-proof when you have a
fleeting subject. And the 6cm x 4.5cm size makes all the difference in
the world to me when shooting 400 ISO film. I'm going to try some Fuji
color 800 ISO this week.
If I found a Mamiya 7 for under $1100, I'd have bought it too. :-)
Jeffery
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002
From: John Sparks [email protected]
Subject: RE: Unsolicited Testimonial
I borrowed both the Bronica and a Mamiya 7II for a few days each to try
out. For everything except the shutter release and the negative size, I
much prefer the Bronica. I found the shutter release on the Bronica a
bit odd as it doesn't fire right away unless the camera is already
"awake" (i.e. shutter release pressed half way down and it hasn't timed
out yet). The Mamiya release is always quick and the shutter is much
quieter.
I found the meter readings in the Mamiya to be very hard to see in
bright sunlight while the Bronica gives much more info in the viewfinder
and is easier to see (though you have to look to the side to see it,
something I actually like). The Mamiya meter only gives you 1 stop
granularity in manual mode, the Bronica is much better (can't remember
exactly). I found the Mamiya meter to be fooled more easily.
The Bronica seems like a much more solid camera and is quite a bit
smaller. Both bodies measure about the same, but when the cameras are
side by side, the bump out for the lens mount and the much longer lenses
make the Mamiya a noticably bigger camera.
Both rangefinders are bright and easy to use. The Mamiya 7II (I've read
that the rangefinder was improved in the 7II and I don't know how the 7
compares to the Bronica) is very slightly brighter or clearer, but both
are very good.
When looking at the negatives with a loupe, the Bronica lens was
noticably sharper (I only tried the 80 for the Mamiya and the 65 for the
Bronica), but not by enough to make up for the smaller negative. If you
care about it, I found the Bokeh of the Bronica lens better than the
Mamiya. In 8x10 prints, it would be very difficult to tell the two
apart. In 11x14 prints, I found the Mamiya noticably smoother and
sharper, but the Bronica wasn't bad. My medium format camera is a
Bronica GS-1 6x7 and generally print 11x14 and 16x20 B&W so maybe I'm
more critical than others. The Bronica 645 was much sharper and
smoother than 35mm, the difference between the two medium formats is
much less than the difference between 645 and 35mm.
I haven't bought either (yet :-)), but I'm seriously considering getting
one or the other at some point. Since I already have a 6x7 camera and
am looking for something smaller for traveling, I'm leaning toward the
Bronica because it's less expensive, smaller and has more shots per
roll, but I might change my mind. I really like prints better from the
bigger negative.
John Sparks
Jeffery Smith wrote:
> They did release the 135mm (late), but it has to be matched to the
> owner's camera body at Bronica. They now have a 100mm out as well.
I think they made only one batch of the 135mm lenses. It was released
in Japan, but withdrawn from the market because of focusing problems.
Either the distributor in England or maybe just the store Robert White
bought the whole batch and adjusted each lens to match a specific body
when purchased. I don't believe any more are available from Robert
White and I've heard of them being available anywhere else. The 100mm
is a replacement for the 135mm and the frameline for the 135 is removed
and replaced with the 100mm version (new cameras have the 100mm
frameline and older ones are modified for free by Bronica). You can't
have a camera set up to use both.
From: Craig Schroeder [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium format rangefinders
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002
"Jason" [email protected] wrote:
>As far as the Bronica, Craig, I was wondering how much of a difference you
>find between the image quality between the stuff you've shot with the
>Bronica 645RF and with the larger format of the Pentax 67....Although I
>think I will probably go with a Mamiya 7, I really do like the feel of the
>Bronica 645RF. That's one reason I ended up with Contax as my 35mm system.
>
>Jason
I've not had a chance to wring out the Bronica yet I've had it about
2 months and have one of those string of events going on that seems to
keep me from getting back to photography projects. I have developed
but not printed one roll of B&W that looks very nice on the negatives.
I've been saving the last 5 frames on a 220 Fuji color roll for a
promised picture of a friend and her new puppy that seems to keep
getting deferred. The one roll processed was very sharp, exhibited no
vignetting and looks as nice as I could hope for. I was/am also happy
with my Fuji GS645 and am assuming that the Bronica will be a slight
upgrade from that, if only from being more modern in design. At
reasonable (11X14) enlargement, I believe that the P67 was only a
hair-splitting improvement over the Fuji. I've had a lot of optics go
through my hands for the P67 over the years and have kept the best
performers when I had duplicates (from buying used systems) before
selling the extras. I mention this so that you know this very small
quality difference wasn't from limited sample variation in the Pentax.
If you go with the P67, budget and plan for a secure tripod. My
3046/3047 Bogen was the lightest (about 12#) Bogen that seemed to
completely handle it with a 200 for indoor work. I ended up with a
Gitzo 1320 with a Bogen 3029 head for hiking (about 8.5#). I won't
bore you with details, but this was after much testing of
alternatives. I got the idea in here of mounting a laser pointer on
the camera and looking at the pattern projected in the negative to
determine what was working best with the P67 ker-chunks.....I recently
bought a Bogen 3011 with 3025 head (about 6#) for hiking with the
Bronica but haven't received it yet so can't report back. It was kind
of an impulse eBay buy but the little Bronica feels so controllable
and gentle in its antics that I'm assuming this will be plenty of
hiking pod for it. I've still got that itch for the Mamiya, though!
I only handled one in a shop, but it's still so much more compact than
the P67 that the small difference with the RF645 seems almost
insignificant for my purposes.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003
From: "mehrdad sadat" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Bronica RF 645
Yes, matter of fact just used it and finished a roll. I think the sales are
down because they were very late and iffy with the tele lens (100/135)and
now a whopping 500 discount! I should have waited but....
regards, mehrdad
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003
From: Jeffery Smith [email protected]
Subject: RE: Bronica RF 645
I cannot find anything I don't like about this camera. As far as I know,
it is very reliable as well (some of the early Bronica SLRs had some
problems). The price is absolutely reasonable (I got mine from Robert
White for $1,100) which makes it practically an entry-level medium
format. The nice thing is that you can enter at that level and stay at
that level!
I think it is the perfect street camera for someone who wants something
fast and small in medium format.
Jeffery
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003
From: "Christopher Williams" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Bronica RF 645
So far I have shot a roll of Konica 400, Fuji NPH, Fuji NPZ, Ilford XP2, and
Tri-X all with great results from the Bronica. Lens is sharp, focus is
almost as easy as the Leica M6. Brighter framelines than other MF RF's.
Of course, now I'll HAVE to get that new Epson 3200 when it comes out to
scan the 645 negs.
Interesting about my Bronica, the serial # is 0000900. Guess an early one so
the newer 100mm lens frameline will not work, but I'm happy with the 65mm
lens.
Anyone using the Bronica flash? My Leica SF-20 works well, I'm thinking
about the Metz 32z-2 for Bronica.
As for street photos, I took some shots on Canal St this afternoon. I went
through 30 frames within 5 minutes!
Chris Williams
New Orleans
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: Bronica review, part next
From: "Eric Stral" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645 vs. Leica for street photos
From: "Art Begun" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645 vs. Leica for street photos
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Jul 2001
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645 vs. Leica for street photos
>A Konica Hexar Rhodium's been my favorite carry-along camera over the past
>couple of years for street photography, either in my backpack alone or with
>a very light tripod. As much as I love the Hexar and its 35 mm lens, I'd
>always figured I'd get an M6 in a couple of years to be able to use a longer
>focal length. Well, that time is now, and I'm considering getting the
>Bronica 645 rangefinder and three lenses instead. Is there anyone out there
>who uses both a Leica and the Bronica? It seems there'd be a great deal of
>overlap; in fact, I'm wondering why anyone who wasn't already invested in
>Leica wouldn't go for the Bronica instead.
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Bronica RF645?
> Hmmm. The 135 is still there under RF645 and lenses for RF645. I just
> looked.
> John
>>
>> Has anyone heard anything further about the mysteriously missing 135mm
> lens?
>> It's been deleted from the "Lenses" browser on the Tamron website, but so
>> far I haven't seen any news as to what's happening (unless it's in
> Japanese
>> on the tamron.co.jp site.)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001
From: John Sparks [email protected]
Subject: RE: Bronica RF645?
From: John Sparks <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Bronica 645 recent post, lost & found?
Maybe you are looking for this one:
http://www.topica.com/lists/rflist/read/message.html?mid=1707499638&sort=d&s
From: Lear [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF? Anybody even handled it?
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001
[email protected] wrote:
>Aloha!
>
>I am looking for opinions about the Bronica RF. No store in the state of
>Hawaii has one to try so my impressions are based on the web brochure.
>ANY impressions, pos or neg are welcome.
>
>Thanks!
Here is a copy of what I wrote in the medium format digest comparing
it to the Mamiya 6: (all is subjective and is subject to be
criticized)
"Bronica RF645 Vs. Mamiya 6/6MF
Since it was first announced I looked towards this camera, as a
smaller and lower profile alternative to the Mamiya 6MF which I
currently own. The idea of a more modern and featured camera and a few
more frames per roll seemed good. I know that a lot of things were
said already about the Bronica so I wont repeat, and only mention the
most prominent and important thing I found (some had been said, but I
found them important to mention again). This month the first RF645's
were received here in Madrid, so I played with one, although I didn't
get the chance to put film trough it.
Since these 2 cameras are the most compact interchangeable lens RF
cameras in the market and targeted to the same kind of photographers,
I found the comparison very interesting.
-The RF645 is just a tad smaller than the Mamiya, not really
significant. However the Bronica as a much more solid feel when
holding it. The weight is about the same.
-The controls are very well placed on the Bronica; especially the ones
on the back are great, much easier to reach than on the Mamiya, plus
multiple exposures possibility. The quality of the exterior parts (I
haven't seen the interior of any of these) is much higher, the speed
selector in the Mamiya is a joke (as if it came out from a kinder
surprise).
-Viewfinder info is much better on the Bronica, but I found the
position of the mirror that shows the LCD a bit awkward and had to
move around to find the best spot. The meter in the one I tried was on
only for 4 seconds, I don't know whether this can be adjusted, but in
manual mode I just couldn't adjust exposure even once, MAJOR
disadvantage.
-According to the salesman when using the 45mm lens you must use the
independent viewfinder to frame, I can't imagine handholding
horizontal shots with it. Big advantage for the Mamiya, all lenses are
covered by the frames in the finder, plus no need to turn camera over.
-The auto light shielding mask when changing lenses is a very nice
thing, no need to do it manually like the Mamiya (I lost more than a
few shots because I forgot to open it back).
-The lens shades are very nice, fall inwards so there is no
interference in the viewfinder, and they seem to be less fragile than
the Mamiya ones.
-The focusing patch is bright and well defined, a bit brighter than
the one in the Mamiya (this may be due to the fact that the camera is
still new, and mine has already a few years on it). Focusing is as
easy in both cameras.
My Conclusion:
The Bronica is VERY VERY nice, but the separate finder for the 45mm is
too much of a hassle, along with the short time the meter is on, I
found the Mamiya much more convenient, for wide angle use in
particular. Nevertheless the RF645 with the 65mm is quite compact
(although not collapsible as de Mamiya). Like in the U.S., there is no
135mm yet.
So despite my whishes, from a user's point of view, I don't find the
RF645 as a real substitute to the Mamiya 6, if you only use the
standard lens, it may be a good choice, but then again, the Fuji is
much cheaper for a one-lens setup. The 45mm viewfinder felt too weird
for me, especially when turning the camera around for horizontals. I
would tolerate this kind of thing only for a real super wide angle
lens, maybe Bronica will give us that much awaited Biogon 38mm like
lens that so many Mamiya users are wishing for. Even If I shot 645, I
would prefer the Mamiya on 6x6 and then crop to fit, even on the cost
of a few frames since my most used lens is the 50mm (would be the 45mm
with RF645).
More opinions are welcome :)
Diego K."
Regarding the 135, it seems there is none, but will be a 100mm.
Diego K.
From: "pdavis" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF - any experiences?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
I own two Bronica systems, the 645RF and the ETRSi. I have owned the RF for
four months now, shooting about 10 rolls a week. It has worked flawlessly,
handles really well, and the images are beautiful, tack sharp. I am using
the 65mm lens, and awaiting the redesigned 135mm. Bronica pulled it because
it wasn't up to their standards, an admirable thing I think. Some companies
would just leave it in production and then when the better lens is ready,
announce the "new improved" version.
The ETRSi I've been using for over four years, again about 10 rolls a week
on average. I've never had any reliability problems, and I bought all my
stuff used on ebay. You often hear people spout opinions, "Oh, so-and-so
told me Bronica was unreliable, etc." Well, I've heard that too, but the
simple truth is, here's one user that's put hundreds of rolls of film
through Bronicas and is very satisfied.
Perry
"mariusz" [email protected]> wrote
> hi
>
> I'm still thinking of any light, reliable field/travel 645 camera. have
you
> got any experiences with a new Bronica's child RF?
>
> I'll be grateful for all the motices, suggestions and remarks.
>
> take care
>
> mariusz
From: John Halliwell [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645 Status
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001
kevin_I [email protected]> writes
>It would be tragic if Bronica abandons those who bought into the
>system by stopping development.
They do need to do something. Having spent the cash to design the 135mm
lens, it might make sense to rework the finder/rangefinder in a new
camera. Apart from that, the Mamiya 7II has a greater lens range, a
similar price and isn't much bigger/heavier:
Bronica: 145.6 (w) x 107.3 (h) x 64 (d), weight 810g
Mamiya: 159 (w) x 112 (h) x 66 (d), weight 920g
>Personally, I think the RF645 has potential and I'm hoping that they
>do stick it out and perhaps come out with an "RF645 II" with a better
>rangefinder that WILL allow for accurate focusing of longer lenses
>(AND a way to upgrade existing bodies). A truly ultra-wide... say
>30mm would be nice too.
>From the brochure:
"The rangefinder employs extremely accurate real image metering suited
for use with any lens up to the telephoto 135mm".
and:
"The base length of the RF645 is 53.5mm. By multiplying this by the
viewfinder magnification of 0.6x, an effective base length of 32.1mm is
obtained. This is more than sufficient accuracy for the telephoto 135mm
F4.5 lens".
The Mamiya 7II brochure gives a baseline of 60mm and 0.57x
magnification, giving effective baseline of 34.2mm (if my maths are
correct). Given the larger format and 150mm lens (I don't think the
250mm is coupled?), I guess this equates approximately with the RF645
and 135mm lens?
Leica solve the problem by offering several versions with different
finder magnifications, and seem to have got away with it!
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
From: "Paul C. Brodek" [email protected]>
Subject: [Leica] Newish Rangefinder Gadgets From Japan
Hi All,
There's a couple of interesting rangefinder-specific gadgets hitting
the market in Japan.
Kenko introduced a polarizing finder/filter system for rangefinders.
The "PL Finder" is essentially a shoe-mount polarizing filter, maybe
25mm in diameter, printed/stamped with a position scale. The finder
is used together with lens-mount circular polarizing filters stamped
with matching position scales ("Circular PL Vernier"). You look
through the finder, rotate to the desired degree of polarization,
then transfer the position reading from the finder filter to the lens
filter. The filters are sold separately, in 39mm, 40.5mm, 43mm and
46mm sizes. List price is 4,800 yen for the finder (US$ 36.00) and
8,000 yen for the filters (US$ 60).
Looks to me like it would be more convenient to setup than the Leica
polarizer, as it eliminates the need to deal with setscrews and
adaptor rings. After it's installed on a lens, the Leica polarizer
would probably be faster in use. Overall I would guess that, if using
in the field with multiple lenses, the Kenko would be faster and more
convenient.
Haven't seen anything on this on THK's (most likely US distributor)
website. Here are the links to the Japanese pages:
http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/news/0110161.html
http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/news/0110162.html
Bronica introduced a double accessory shoe for the Bronica RF that
includes a hot shoe. I wouldn't think there'd be any TTL flash
compatibility with Leica, but if you needed to use both a finder and
an automatic/non-TTL flash on your Leica/Hexar/Bessa this might let
you do it without having to use a synch cord. List price is 15,000
yen ($115.00).
Bronica also introduced an interesting polarizing method for the RF.
A 43mm polarizer threads into a bracket which clips over the
viewfinder, covering the finder window. Position scale settings from
the 43mm polarizer are transferred to a 58mm lens-mount polarizer with
matching scale. Nothing really directly applicable to our beloved
Leicas here, but I thought it was an interesting solution to the
rangefinder polarizing issue. Links to the double shoe and polarizer:
http://www.tamron.co.jp/rf645/rf645_acc.htm
Enjoy,
PB
Paul C. Brodek
Hillsdale, N.J. U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001
From: Joachim Hein [email protected]
Subject: RE: Bronica RF645 telephoto?
In a recent issue of Amateur Photographer (UK Mag) it was reported, the
135mm for the RF645 had been cancelled. They quoted precision problems. I guess
they didn't get the focusing under control. Bronica intends to `replace'
it with a 110mm. It was reported that the finder of the already sold
bodies could be altered to show frame lines for the 110mm instead of the
135mm.
Broken Links:
Tamron/Bronica Japan RF645 Announcement
page was at http://www.tamron.co.jp/english/whats/new_rf645.htm