Hasselblad or Bronica SQ-A. Pros/Cons

<p>I've had MF cameras in the past (Mamiya 645, Fuji GW670) but I fancy having another go at it after using digital for so long. I'll never go back to film full time but I do enjoy using it.</p>

<p>Anyway, I want to go down the 6x6 SLR route. Bronica's S2/SQ-A push all the right buttons as do the Hasselblads. I'll be using just the one lens only (75 or 80mm standard lens). Obviously Bronica will be cheaper but is the 80mm Bronica lens (or the earlier 75mm Nikkor) up to the job? i.e. can it compete with the Hasselblad 80mm?</p>

<p>Also, I will want metering at some point so any feedback on the accuracy and reliability of both Bronica's and Hasselblads prisms and finders will be welcome. I like the thought of the metered chimney 'blad finders as I will still be able to look down into the camera instead of holding the thing right up at eye level.</p>

<p>Jamie, The 75mm Bronica Nikkor lens was quite good. If all you need is the one lens, then go with Bronica and leave the Hasselblad equipment for the rest of us<g>. I don't believe Hasselblad ever made a metered chimney. They made metered prisms. Unless you get a newer (much more expensive) model with built in metering. The look of the lenses are very different.</p>

<p>My first modular, SLR 6x6 was the Bronica S2A. Mechanically, well .. what can you expect of a camera that was mostly of pressed metal parts. Answer: Not the precision engineering one finds and feels in a Hasselblad of the 500 series onwards.<br /> Although I am in agreement with Michael regarding the 75mm Nikkor lens. The one on my S2A was a gem. However, having moved over to the Hasselblad, I've never looked back. The standard 80 mm Planar is an excellent lens, even the pre T* Multi-coated, chrome C version. Sharp as a tack. Lens flare is well controlled with the appropriate shade.<br /> For me, another convincing argument in favour of moving over to the Hasselblad was the extensive accessory range, and compatibility from one model to the next. Not so with Bronica.<br /> Never bothered with metered cameras either. I've had Gossen analogue meters for years, and love watching the needle align with my intuition. For studio flash, I have digital flash meters. For carry about flash, the Metz CT45 does the trick. It's own built-in meter is spot on. And that's it.</p>

<p>You are askaing a rather tricky question. As stated I woudl buy a Hasselblad, preferably one that had been rehabbed by Dave Odess (particulaly get a rehabbed back - a lot of the medium format stuff on the market is old pro stuff and has been used hard). For a simple setup, the price difference with a Bronica is rather small and the resale is probably better. BUT if you begin to add lenses or through the lens flash monitoring or auto exposue or a motor drive the Bronica becomes much much less expensive and from most people's reports there just isn't a difference in image quality. I went through the same thing - bought a Hassie but couldn't bring myself to spend $1200+ for a 40mm when the Bronica 40 is $350 or less. Sold the Hassie and just got a sqa today. You live and learn.</p>

<p>Both are excellent cameras; I used Bronica S2's in the late 60's/early 70's and found them very good...lenses were good and cameras functioned well; now using Hasselblads...I think they're better...can't beat those Zeiss lenses and I prefer the BTL shutters which sync at any speed (newer Bronicas use BTL shutters, too, but the older models had focal plane shutters); I'd recommend making your choice based on what you feel comfortable spending.</p>

<p>Jamie,<br>

It depends on what you mean by "up to the job." I can tell you that the earlier Nikkor lenses for the Bronica S and S2 can flare very easily, and so can later Zenzanon models. If it were me, I'd test Zeiss against Bronica and see for myself. Below is a situation in which the weakness of one of my Bronica lenses is exposed: a night skyline shot. As you can see, there are halos around the bright light, even though I was keeping the aperture around F11-16. Similar shots taken with modern Pentax glass don't show this. I've also had problems with portraits, which I frequently do with the sun at the subject's back--again, the Bronica glass will flare where more modern glass won't. Personally, I'd go for the best-coated MF lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>crop showing flare on red lights:</p><div></div>

<p>I've heard good things about the Bronicas, and have known a few event photographers who used them. Upon seeing their work, I can attest that the lenses for the Bronicas are indeed quite good. The photographers loved the equipment, maybe because they didn't have to spend the thousands that the equivalent Hasselblad equipment would have cost at the time. But today the situation is completely different. Hasselblads are going for pennies on the dollar, and the price gap between used Hasselblad and Bronica gear isn't what the price gap between the two brands was when new. I had thought about buying the Bronica gear when I was ready for a medium format SLR, but when the opportunity arose for me to pick up a very nice Hasselblad kit, I bit. I've been very pleased with it, and just love the way it works. You can really feel the precision to which this camera is built in the way it handles. There is no metered chimney finder for the Hasselblad, only several versions of metered prism finders. The one have is very accurate, and has a very handy center weighted metering pattern. I prefer the waist level finder best, and use a hand held incident meter more often than not.</p>

<p>Old story, but I'll repeat some. I used the SQa and SQam system for about 10 years full-time when I did industrial photography. They were used almost every day and absolutely beat to death. The weak spot are the film backs, everything else pretty much holds up. Later PS series lenses are indeed excellent, 80mm is superb. I really liked the 65mm and suggest maybe you give tht a whirl. I eventually packed these up and sold them all off along with half my Nikons and bought all new Hasselblads (what was I thinking...), which I still have today for about 12 years. My favorite Hasselblad lens is the 100mm CF, just awesome, not that any of the others are a problem, lol. So having put serious miles on both what's my favorite? Operation wise I really liked the Bronicas, as far as which is actually the better machine, no question the Hasselblad, but aside from the film backs the Bronicas to me are certainly right there. I used to use about 10 backs and one or two were always broken. Hasselblads have a tendency to jam though, especially if you lean slightly on the shutter button and the lens lets go without the body, this is a PITA. I have 5 Hasselblads and have jammed three of them, so it's not unusual. I'm trying not to be biased and just tell you like it is straight up. Out of all of them what do I think the two sharpest lenses are? The 100CF and 180CF. Those are two very serious lenses, close to perfect if there is such a thing.</p>

<p>Dave, now there you go again.<g> I have used Hasselblads since the early 80's, and own a half dozen bodies, and have owned and sold a dozen more. I have only jammed one of them. It was when I screwed up the sequence of taking off an extension tube, and I was able to recover it myself. I would point out that any camera needs regular CLA. It is the best way to ensure your camera goes "click" when it is supposed to.</p>

<p>I came off of a YashicaMat 124G that I simply wore out after extensive shooting over three years. It was made of pot metal. When I found that Hasselblad was cut from a block of stainless steel, I was all in. I never looked back.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your detailed answers and examples, I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>Shame about the lack of a metered chimney finder. I've heard about the 'blads jamming up before... sounds as though I had better read up about the correct operating instructions to prevent it happening. Am I right in saying that if I never remove the 80mm lens then the jamming issue won't be a problem? Like I said, I'll be using the 80mm and won't be buying or using any other lenses. Likewise, I won't be using flash. I'll only need one film back as this camera will be my plaything, nothing more.</p>

<p>I suppose given the choice I would love a 'blad but the Bronicas seem so much of a bargain.</p>

<p>The way prices are now, you can buy the Bronica dirt cheap, and later if you want to go to Hasselblad you can't lose much selling the Bronica.</p>

<p>I have three SQ-As along with a 50/3.5 PS, an 80/2.8 S, an 80/2.8 PS, a 150/4 and a 2X S. The two 80mm lenses are both excellent and seem equal in performance. I sometimes have to use an extrension tube or close-up lens for the 150 because it doesn't focus very close. The 50 is sharp enough that a lot of cropping can be done and the image is still very sharp. The square format is an acquired taste if you learned on a rectangular format. If need to make a very large print I will use a GS-1 and if I know I will be making ractanguar prints I will use an ETR or an ETRS. You will need to make a very large print with a Hasselblad and its 80mm lens to see a difference between it and the 80mm lens, either one, on an SQ-A. The Hasselblad is undoubtedly better made and even somewhat more compact. I like carrying an SQ-A with the 80, a back and a waist level finder. With an old Gossen Scout II and an extension tube I can cover a lot of ground with not too much weight. For eye level shooting a prism and speed grip make for a large but still easy to hold package. If you don't need some of the more specialized accessories that the Hasselbald offers and if you donlt plan to shoot hundreds of rolls a month then a Bronica SQ system should be fine. I have seen some nice work done with the older focal plane shutter Bronicas but these are primarily used by collectors now.</p>

<p>Yes Michael. 8-)) A funny side note is that I jammed a brand new one on the first shoot at an engine shop and asked if they had a long handled screwdriver that would fit the cog in the back so I could wind it. They gave me a nice new Snap-On one that fit perfectly and told me to keep it, I still have it in my bag. Notice I said "that I jammed"....</p>

<p>I think you need to understand that the Bronica S2 and SQ/SQa/SQAi are completely different cameras. You should not draw any conclusions, good or bad , from experience (yours or anyone else's) of the "other" camera type. The former cameras, now pretty much all more than 40 years old, used Nikkor lenses. The SQ series cameras date from 1980 up to their discontinuation a few years back and used Bronica (Zenzanon) lenses. Its not as simple as comparing "Bronica" with "Hasselblad" . Models vary in capability. Lenses vary according to series. </p>

<p>One thing is clear; for the same budget you can get a newer Bronica, or you can compare two cameras of similar age and spec. whilst accepting that the Bronica will save you money. Do you want to take that difference as money, as a newer camera, as accessories or whatever?</p>

<p>Again when it comes to metering its difficult, for Bronica at least made a range of metered prisms , many of which are extremely simple by comparison to anything you might have used on a contemporary slr camera. Think about whether you might be better off with a handheld meter.</p>

<p>This is a queston I pondered some before I bought back into MF after being absent from it for a number of years. About 18 years ago, I sold off a Bronica EC-TL outfit that had taken me some amount of time to put together, and to this day, wish I would have kept it, but what's done is done. </p>

<p>You mentioned that you'd like a camera with a meter. Unlike the S2-series, the EC was available with an accessory metered finder and the EC-TL came with a built-in meter, as well as aperture-priority auto exposure. The EC-series is not as common as the S2-series (they both use the same lenses), but I've always felt it was a much better, and better made, camera. I found the meter on my EC-TL to be quite accurate, as were its electronically-timed shutter speeds. There were really only two things I didn't care for about the EC=TL: 1) the focal plane shutter and its slow 1/60 second flash sync, and 2) the 12/24 backs for the EC-series are rare as hens teeth. Took me over a year of searching before I finally found a spare. As far as the lenses for the S2 and EC cameras, I think I'd have to give the nod to the Nikkors, but the Zenzas I owned were also very good.</p>

<p>I don't have much experience with the SQ series. I assisted for a wedding photographer for a while, whose main camera was a Hasselblad, and whose back-up was a Bronica SQ-A. Guess which one I used. :) Hey, it worked great, but that's all the experiece I can report. Currently I own an ETRS-i (6x4.5), and I can say I really enjoy it. Very well made camera, and the lenses are excellent. Zeiss quality? Probably not, but I am very happy with the images they produce. Nice thing about the later Bronicas is that meter prisms are available. And they cost a small fraction of what the Hasselblad prisms do. So, I'd have to say that Pros for the Bronica are ruggedness and reliability, excellent image quality, and good prices on the gear. Cons -- well the biggest con really -- is that Tamron has decided that Bronica doesn't deserve to exist anymore. Really too bad, IMO.</p>

<p>Pros for the Hassy are many: the company is still in business, for starters. When one thinks of MF, one thinks of Hassy. So many lenses and accessories. And just about everything made for and by Hassy is pro-level quality. Cons are pretty much the prices of this stuff. Ouch! True, the digital revolution has caused prices to come down a LOT for all MF gear, including Hasselblad, but it's still pricey by comparison with other makes.</p>

<p>You also mentioned that you'd be using just the camera with the one lens. Well, that causes me to ask, why not get a camera that has just a normal lens? Like a Yashica Mat, or a Zeiss Super Ikonta? I used to own a Yashica Mat 124G, and it took great pics. Its meter was even generally accurate enough to use with slides. But it did have kind of a cheap feel to it. A more robust camera with basically al the same features is the Mat 124. Same lens, same meter, same 12/24 capability. Just more machined parts and fewer stamped ones. I currently own a Yashica Mat 124 and am very happy with that camera. Its 75mm f/3.5 Yashinon is amazingly sharp. And I also should mention the Super Ikontas. My favorite is the late "B" -- square format, coated 80mm optic, with a Synchro-Compur shutter (so you have flash sync if you need it). Truly a "Pocket Hasselblad." Zeiss also produced an SI III and IV, which were the last of its MF folders, but I don't know much about them. They are also fantastic picture takers, though.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael, the 500 series Hasselblad bodies were machined from a solid block of aluminum alloy.</p>

<p>Jamie the Bronica may seem like so much of a bargain to you now, but the 500 series Hasselblad prices are so depressed from what they once were, that you kind of have to say to yourself "Why cheap out now?". If you want only one lens, and go with a Hasselblad 500 series, think about choosing a 60mm 3.5 Distagon in place of the 80mm 2.8 Planar. It will be much more versatile. Yes there is a learning curve to master the basics of using a 500 series Blad, but it is time well spent. The Zeiss lenses will produce great images if you take the time to learn the system. Metering with a hand held Gossen Luna Star F seems like a natural way to meter with a system like this. Take your time and think about the images that you want to make.</p>

<p>I have used s2a, sq-a, sq-ai and 501cm. if you only use 80mm lens, I suggest you go for sq-ai. s2a is too old and very heavy without mirror-up and multiple ex functions, when you shot with s2a, someone could be easy to hear your shutter noice from a hundred yards away. I also compared 80mm PS and 80 mm CFE, for contrast, sharpness they are almost same, for color CFE is a little bit better, but cfe had a bad flare control compared to PS, even with lens hood. PS lens has speed up to 16s and CFE has only 1S, you will find those 16s, 8s, 4s, 2s are very useful. sq-ai control is much better than 501cm and 503CW. I have used 5-6 sq-ai and never had any problems with them. If you want more lenses, such 40mm, 50mm, 180mm, 350mm, 500mm, you may consider go with zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>I think you should get a Hasselblad...I don't have anything technical to add, but I love mine and I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.</p>

<p>please, go buy superb hasselblad and leave inferior zenzanons for us, the prices in used market went nuts in past 2 years.</p>

 

<p>Michael, the 500 series Hasselblad bodies were machined from a solid block of aluminum alloy.<br>

Actually, the bodies are machined from a casting which is manufactured by a third party, and then machined by hasselblad, or at least it used to be when the factory was in Gothenberg.</p>

 

<p>Although I never used a Hasselblad, I can comment on the only aspect that I don't like of My SQ-A that, I believe, is not an issue in the other system: the 80mm Zenzanon cannot focus close enough for close-ups or even close portraits. You must use extension tubes or close-up lenses (filters). Apart from that, I am very happy with my Bronica.</p>