Deciding - Hasselblad vs Bronica SQ/GS

Jeff,<br><br>Could you explain how what you see as 'my' <i>"definition"</i> of slowing down differs from the general "definition" of what slowing down would be?<br><br>And how will your continued attempt to dismiss people looking for a replacement for their 6000-series batteries (<i>"mentaly brain damaged"</i>, no less), while agreeing that people probably will indeed need to look for a replacement, help support your suggestion that a Rollei 6008 might be a good choice?<br><br>And how about that thing about trying to read what people actually wrote?

<p>"<em>As a final comparison, the Hasselblad cameras are very bare as far as features and controls go. Personally, I like this: it has a mirror lockup, exposure settings, and that's about it. The Bronicas are excellent cameras, but there are just too many buttons for my tastes</em>."</p>

<p>Gee, I'm not seeing any "extra" buttons on my Bronica SQ-B. Hmmm, shutter, lens release, shutter speed dial, mirror-up, multiple exposure, back release. Not much scope for confusion. Like what does "extra" mean to you?</p>

<p><em>"Why would someone who is more interested in APS-C DSLRs be posting in the medium format section?"</em></p>

<p>Equally why would someone responding in a thread entitled<em> "Deciding - Hasselblad vs Bronica SQ/GS" </em>be mentioning Rollei?<br>

<br>

<em>"......your APS-C <strong>also ran</strong> DSLR." </em>(Emphasis again added to highlight point I'm about to make)<br>

<em> </em><br>

Is there a problem you'd like to talk about?. You're getting more worked up (about nothing) as your response goes on. I mentioned the A77 because the ad appeared on the page you linked and as I said, of the cameras listed, it was the one that appealed to me most. Doesn't make me some digifan needing to bolster my digi-ego. I didn't dismiss the medium format cameras disparagingly (no <strong><em>also ran</em></strong> comments). I happen to be happy with my GX680 (Zeiss lenses <strong>not</strong> available) and out of all the MF cameras listed on that linked page none would interest me to get now whereas the Sony A77 (Sony lenses also available :-)) would. I must be one of those odd (to you?) people who can switch between film and digital without feeling a sense of revulsion for what I'm doing.</p>

<p>If you look at the first and second of my responses you'll see that I addressed the question the OP asked without any deviation from the parameters he set. If you can live comfortably with yourself for bringing Rollei into the equation, (which muddied the waters and then QG's responses seemed to needle you to the point where any reply quoting something of yours gets the scatter gun approach), then I can live comfortably with stating a personal preference for a Sony camera based on if I were looking round for something new to get. I didn't suggest the OP should be getting one instead, or indeed that I'd be getting one. I still recommend the OP get the Bronica given all of his needs/wants so far stated. If he gets one and likes it but then feels the need for something different/better he can switch if his budget allows it. At present with his stated budgetary considerations I feel of the two camera systems he is considering the Sony oops Freudian slip ... Bronica suits him best.</p>

<p>Anyway I now expect to see a condemnation of the mention of 4 x 5 format in a medium format thread to maintain the balance of your logic. (Ease up ...just joking)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Why would someone who is more interested in APS-C DSLRs be posting in the medium format section?"</em><br>

<strong>Equally</strong> why would someone responding in a thread entitled<em> "Deciding - Hasselblad vs Bronica SQ/GS" </em>be mentioning Rollei?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark, I would not consider talking about another 6x6 medium format film camera to be equivalent to insisting on an APS-C DSLR from a small player. Additionally that wasn't the issue that garnered you that response. This was...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Move with the times I say...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I bought my Rollei 6008 AFTER I already owned a DSLR. I feel no need to harangue digital shooters. Not sure why the reverse doesn't seem to be the same.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"......your APS-C <strong>also ran</strong> DSLR." </em>(Emphasis again added to highlight point I'm about to make)<br /> <br /> Is there a problem you'd like to talk about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DSLR global market share 2010 IDC numbers...<br>

Canon 44.5%<br /> Nikon 29.8%<br /> Sony 11.9 %</p>

<p>You don't buy a camera. You buy a system. Canon and Nikon have been at this a long time. I don't know what the future holds but if you are a conservative buyer those numbers should give you pause. Frankly the health of Rollei vs Hasselblad was a big issue for me. But the Rollei system offered so many nice features I eventually took the plunge. Nobody has put forth as compelling an argument about Sony so I have not felt the need to dump my Canon gear and start all over with Sony. <strong>You have inadvertently brought up a good point. The Hasselblad system seems to be the healthiest with Rollei trailing and Bronica dead and buried.</strong> Hasn't prevented me forum using Rollei and Bronica exclusively but the health of the system did weigh on my mind. Honestly though I'm glad Sony is making DSLRs and I hope Zeiss is making high quality lenses for that system. The more the merrier. I just reacted the way I did because of Q.G. de Bakker and also your "move with the times" comment. There are trade offs with every choice. And if Ray wants a Sony camera that's his choice. I just don't need someone telling me to "move with the times" simply because I choose to supplement my DSLR shooting with a film medium format camera for my own reasons. I also don't need someone telling me I look at charts to "reassure" myself about lenses I already own. I used that chart as one source amongst many to guide my future purchasing decisions. Honestly if I make a remark that is a bit harsh... I fully expect the recipient to react. It may not be my intent, but I wouldn't be surprised at the results.</p>

<p>Mr. (Or Ms.) Watson: by 'extra stuff' I mean that the Bronica SQs I've used have multiple buttons/releases that need to be used to do a single thing, much like a Mamiya TLR. Yes, it has a back release. But while the Hassy requires sliding the release lever, the Bronica requires holding a button and sliding the release lever. The same goes for several other functions. Since I'm a few hundred rolls in with my Hasselblad and have NEVER accidentally taken off the film back (and I'm not always very careful), I would consider this to be an extra, unecessary button. The same goes for a few of the other camera functions: the camera might not have any more features, but it does have more buttons.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that this was a single Bronica, and I don't even remember which SQ model it was. It may be different on the models I haven't used.</p>

<p>The Mamiya TLRs are even more complicated, but I'm willing to put up with it there, because it's essentially the only interchangable lens TLR. It's still a pain, but it's not just a 'cheaper, more complicated' version of another camera.</p>

<p>Gee, Zack, your Bronica SQ moment obviously wasn't very memorable. A simple button push and the back's off--provided the dark slide's in. Can't imagine what other functions you recall that require all this button pushing of multiple extra buttons. Either you've forgotten how the Bronica works or perhaps you've not really worked with one(?). A very straightforward camera with no glaring faults apart from requiring a long-lived battery.</p>

<p>No worries about digging Hasselblads but don't diss Bronica for nothing other than not being a Hasselblad.</p>

<p>You're right, it wasn't very memorable. So I googled it.</p>

<p>The SQ-A back has a left and right pull tab AND a button for release. I have no idea whether or not both pull tabs need to be used at the same time. In addition, the right side has two toggle swtiches (I assume one is mirror lockup) and a pull tab, which I assume is a lens release. This is at least one more switch than the 500 C/M. That extra switch could be a T/O switch (which the Hassy also has), but the Hassy wraps it around the shutter release so there is less real estate dedicated to switches. Additionally, Hassy puts the mirror lockup switch right where your hand is going to be anyway, and it is a pressure switch: it can be activated without moving your hand. This cannot be done with the SQ-A, unless you have enormous hands or hold the camera funny.</p>

<p>The right side of the SQ-A has two buttons, which appear to be a shutter knob release, and a darkslide release. Again, two things I've not accidentally screwed up with my Hassy. Plus the SQ-A shutter knob is recessed, so I don't even know how you'd manage to operate it by mistake. If that's what it does, of course.</p>

<p>Additionally, the right side has two small ports. I have no idea what they are for.</p>

<p>Normally I couldn't be bothered to google something so trivial, but you were right - I genuinely did not remember the SQ well, and I'm still not positive which model I was using. The SQ-Ai (which, admittedly, has a meter) has even more controls though, so it looks like I was correct - the SQ series as a whole does require more effort to do the same work as the Hasselblad 500c/m that the OP mentioned, even if it's just a little.</p>

<p>Granted the 503 and other models start getting complicated too, but those weren't the models that the OP asked about.</p>

<p>I'm not digging Bronica for 'not being a Hasselblad.' Like many other members - maybe even you - I've used too many cameras over the years to remember detailed specifications on how they all work. Shoot, I <em>owned</em> a Mamiya C3f until about two years ago, and I can't for the life of me remember the order in which I need to hit switches to change lenses without locking up the camera. Is it 'advance camera and lens' and then change lens? Or is it 'change lens, and then advance camera and lens simultaneously?'</p>

<p>But I <em>do</em> remember enough about the cameras to recall which ones I liked using, and which ones I didn't. I didn't like using the Bronica SQ, whatever model it was. That's why I chose not to buy it after borrowing it for a couple weeks.</p>

Back in another lifetime, The Bronica SQa system was my primary system for almost all of my professional work for about

11 years, from 1986 until about 1997 I used them (4 SQa and 1 SQam, 6 lenses, 10-12 film backs) for thousands of rolls

of film. In 1997 I sold them all and swithched to the Hasselblad system (4 bodies, 8 lenses, 7 film backs) I still have all my

Hasselblads and use them sometimes mostly for black and white.

 

One thing about the extra levers and releases is that the Bronicas had more fail safes built in. This was actually a very

good thing if you were working fast or in a hectic environment. For a specific example, once you took a film back off a

Bronica, if you put it back on another body, the body would recognize the condition of the back and the status of whether

it was wound to the next frame or not because the body freewheeled, the back had the stop and counting mechanism and

an actuator that mated with the body that knew whether the darkslide was in or not. While in a hurry I have screwed up

the same things on the Hasselblad. Also, if you're using studio flash, it can be left plugged into the PC on the Bronica

body, but has to be plugged into each different Hassie lens, a pain in the can if you're working fast, also you tend to break

the wire connectors to after a while or bend the tips, another glitch that slows things down if you're shooting heavy.

 

As for comparing the lenses, the Bronica PS series was designed to be as good as/better than their big competitors.

suffice it to say that they did a damn good job. That being said, the Hasselblad 50mm fle, 100mm and 180mm are simply

incredible examples of the finest lenses you can find anywhere. I have hand printed and enlarged numerous black and

white negatives from all of the lenses I owned and the differences across the board are very subtle. The Bronica PS

50mm and 65mm are really great lenses. The 110mm macro is another superb lens, I've borrowed one but didn't ever

buy one.

 

As for the durability, the Hassie is more durable overall, the Bronica backs have many screws that will in time corrode or

come loose and the mounting plates come loose making them shift, so you have to check/replace the screws and keep

an eye on if they're coming loose etc. I used to sit on my porch once a month and go over all the little screws and

mounting plates on the backs plus check the film tension wheels.

 

Whatever you decide, have fun 8-))))

I was just thinking a few points worth mentioning. Back in the days of manual focus, with a speed-grip handle and

relatively smooth turning lenses that mounted in the same way and direction as Nikons, you could easily use Nikon F3s

and FM2s with motors and a Bronica SQa with relative familiarity. The Hasselblad lenses mounted reverse and had a

much stiffer focus ring and focused from near to far opposite the Nikons, so were more user friendly for a Canon F1

system user. I used to be able to focus my Bronicas very fast with one finger. The Hassies definitely slowed me down and

were awkward for me to get used to. Now with digital autofocus Nikons and all that plus using the Hassies less and

having them now 15 years, all this for me really doesn't matter.

<p>In order... over the years I have owned, sold, bought again and again and again... finally settling on the RB67 Pro S.</p>

<p>the Bronica GS1... my thoughts on it were it was a quality camera. Just love 6x7!!! I thought the glass was quality more than I would ever need. Lens selection is sparse. Great camera until you wanted a vertical shot. Light enough to handhold for awhile but not something that will be done for long. A sturdy tripod and pan tilt head is a must.</p>

<p>Next was the Hasselblad 500 C/kit lens... not terribly expensive, and very good overall build and image quality. Light enough in weight and hand holdable. I could just never get used to square format. others will say... just crop in camera... but i could just never see like that. Adding glass and backs and such will be a bit more pricey in the long run.</p>

<p>Bronica ETR of some variety... Easily the most portable of the group. Cheap and easy to replace. Did not own it long enough to give a good review. Again the vertical action kinda makes it cumbersome.</p>

<p>Mamiya RB67 Pro S... this is what I currently own. Prices on all of these systems have fallen to such prices that you don't need repair because they it's typically cheaper to buy a replacement. I am satisfied with this system. It is HUGE, even in comparison to the GS1. Additional glass is easy to find. For me... The rotating back and 6x7 negative trump all other systems in my mind. It's not a compromise. If I wanted a walk around medium format camera, there are Fuji RF's that will fit niche. When I'm done building out the system, I'll likely have less than $600 in a three lens, three back, two VF system. Parts are everywhere... not so with the Bronica GS1</p>

<p>If you can get your mind, wallett, and hands around 6X6, I'd say go 'blad. Build is better. If money is an issue, the Bronica probably has more bang for the buck. You will not be dissappointed in either choice.</p>

<p>Everybody has given true and worked solutions.<br>

I am amazed one would set off for a Full System, without a single hesitation.<br>

Going to Medium Format is not simply using a roll of film, with paper backing.<br>

A whole new set of rules, both good and bad!<br>

Anyone shooting at full aperture on 120, can make wondrous, discoveries concerning "flatness" of film.<br>

It ain't 35mm running in a straight line as in your Nikon.<br>

The Pentax 67, Mamiya TLR "C" series all run film straight.<br>

No fancy loading maneuvers.Personally loading Hassie magazines, a harsh punishment!<br>

Processing at this time, a real problem. Unless done self.<br>

I would suggest buy a camera, ONE, ONE lens, use it awhile.<br>

Make prints in similar conditions and same time with your Nikon and compare results.<br>

Use a digital camera, point and shoot, a DSLR or compact and make same size prints.<br>

Then come to a conclusion..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Pentax 67, Mamiya TLR "C" series all run film straight.<br /> No fancy loading maneuvers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you buy into the philosophy of running film straight through the camera vs having it bend back on itself then add the Rollei 6000 series to your list. I've owned a 6003 and a 6008i and they both run film straight from one spool to the other. That's the reason the camera is kind of tall. I am assuming the situation is the same with the rest of the series. You will have to check if you are interested.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Processing at this time, a real problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>120 C-41 is $0.84 through Walmart's send out service. That's for developing only. You can order proof prints but they are proofs in the truest sense of the word. 220 C-41 developing costs the same. 120 and 220 E-6 is something like $4.88. It takes two weeks for your negatives/slides to come back. I believe they are processed by Dwayne's. Walmart charges more for 35mm and some of their stores in the US do not return 35mm negatives!</p>

<p>To be honest I can't imagine a time when processing C-41 medium format commercially was any cheaper on an inflation adjusted basis.</p>

<p><img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/v7xm34.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="557" /></p>

<p>Ray,<br /> These days you can buy something and if you don't like it sell it without loss or with only a small loss. I consider the small loss to be a reasonable "rental cost".<br />My point is, you can lay out less money for either Bronica than the Hasselblad, so your available funds will be able to purchase you more lenses or accessories. After you use the Bronica for a while, you will be able to tell if it feels right to you, if the style of camera works for you, if you're happy with the lenses, etc.</p>

<p>You are trying to make two choices here: Hasselblad or Bronica, and 6x6 or 6x7. Addressing Bronica vs. Hasselblad, the best comparison is like to like. My opinion is, you should get the Bronica 6x6 and work with it. If you find after a while you don't like working with that type of camera, or don't like 6x6 so much, then the Hasselblad is not likely to be right for you either.<br /> If you like the SQ series camera, then you could decide at some time to explore the Hasselblad mystique, i.e., the lenses that are said to be enough different from other brands to be worth their cost, the feel of a Hasselblad, the vast available knowledge in the community of Hasselblad users, that sort of thing.</p>

<p>The Bronica GS-1 is a larger, heavier camera with bulkier lenses, and that will be noticeable compared to the 6x6's. Whether it matters is up to you. It is of the same form factor as the 6x6 SLR's, so you would be able to see if you mind the mirror staying up after exposure, and general handling characteristics of that type of machine. The prime consideration is whether you want a rectangle bigger than a cropped 6x6.</p>

<p>Bottom line, I think whatever you decide will be a good decision, if you get a machine in good shape at the going price, because prices are not likely to fall further any time soon, making your risk of losing money very low if you decide you want to try something else. You will learn about your own needs in a camera setup from whatever choice you make.</p>

<p>I chose a Bronica (645) because I wanted to get my feet wet in MF, and did not want to lay out a lot of money. I've stayed with it, but I now find myself gravitating toward square format, much to my surprise. I never before cared that much for the square, but now I see that a lot of what I've wanted to achieve would be better served by square format. So the Bronicas have served their purpose well. I found that mirror blackout does not bother me, that leaf shutters are very nice, that I like film backs, and I have become open to a new way of seeing. So, much as the GS-1 intrigues me, I see myself moving to 6x6. I will most likely get an SQ series camera and several lenses, and after exploring shooting in square, figure out what works for me. Then if I decide to go to Hasselblad I will have a clear idea of what I will want.<br /> Before going to Hasselblad, I would have to be convinced that my square format work is of a quality that would justify going for the purported optical quality, and qualities, of the Zeiss lenses. If a picture doesn't measure up, what equipment I use doesn't matter.</p>

The "not lay out a lot of money" approach may be more costly than you think (and describing it as such suggests). You can get the cheapest, or most affordable, system first, test drive it as suggested. Change to another system if it turns out not to be what you expected (or when your curiosity about how other systems would perform has not been laid to rest). Test drive that. And so on.<br>In the end, even though you can indeed sell the stuff you don't want to keep, you may well have spend considerably more than when you had researched your choice, and saved up to get the system that based on your research holds the best promise to be what you are after. Even if that is considerably more expensive than the "let's try this one first"-systems.

<p>I am not really referring to "test-driving" different systems. I am talking about about trying new formats and new types of cameras.</p>

<p>I got my first ETRSi, with 75mm lens and 120 back, to get an idea of what using a medium format SLR is like. It cost me $130.<br>

I wanted rectangular format, as I had no interest in square at the time. I got the Bronica instead of the Pentax or Mamiya because I wanted to see what I thought of a non-returning mirror, leaf shutters and interchangeable backs, and if I liked it, to try the variety of interchangeable finders and a variety of lenses to get a feel for what I liked. In 645 only the Bronica offered the opportunity for all that.<br>

It afforded me the opportunity to see if a Hasselblad or RB/RZ would even be something I might like. It let me see if the extra bulk and weight of even a 645 system would be something I could work with.<br>

My purpose was to evaluate medium format, and to evaluate a way of working with medium format which was different from what I was accustomed to with 135 format. I also had fun shooting Kodachrome panoramas while I still had the chance to, using the 35mm pano back.<br>

<br />I did not expect square format to become appealing, but it has, so I have gained much insight from my dalliance with MF, and all without having to commit much money to it. It was smarter for me than jumping into a Hasselblad and several lenses for a couple or 3 grand and then deciding it's not for me.</p>

 

It's always smarter not to spend money on things you don't want, Jeff.<br>That's why the test-drive/let's-try-this-one-first approach should be reconsidered. You did spend money on a camera to see whether another camera might be something you would like (and had fun trying that test-camera).<br>Suppose you did not like the test-drive. You would not know whether it was because of the particulars of the camera you tested, and would be left with the question whether the camera you would have liked to try in the first place would satisfy your needs and wants. Or suppose it showed that you would indeed want that other camera.<br>Then you would have to spend more to get that thing. Nothing saved. You will also have to get the money put in the test-camera back.<br>Should, however, the test camera turn out to be the thing for you, all is well. But does it have a chance to show itself to be just that, having been bought because you really wanted something else?<br><br>Anyway, lots of suppositions, true. But either way (!): you too suppose that after you would have spend 2000 or 3000 on a camera you would decide it's not the one for you.<br>Both scenario's are possible. I just think it worth mentioning that the "start cheap" approach may well end up being the most expensive way to end up wherever the search will end.

<p>Q.G., you misunderstood me. I don't advocate churning through numerous systems just to get a feel for each.</p>

<p>I set out to learn as much as I could about where I would likely go in medium format. The ETRSi <em>is</em> the camera I wanted. I selected it because I would learn the most from getting it instead of something else, and I only spent $130 to find out if a MF SLR was something I would take to at all. I certainly could discern if the characteristics of a specific model were a problem or if it was something more general. <br>

I had little interest in square format, so I did not consider those for a first purchase.</p>

<p>My first aim was to see if I liked medium format in general. Fewer exposures, slower to load, less depth of field for equivalent focal length and lens opening, etc.<br>

Second, I wanted to see what I thought of a medium format SLR, particularly dealing with increased weight and bulk. The smallest and lightest format was the place to start.<br>

Third, I wanted to try an SLR type with as many features new to me and different from my 135 format SLR's as possible: full modularity, leaf shutters, interchangeable backs, mirror blackout, a variety of finders including waist level (I had those in 135 format, but MF are much bigger), choice of hand crank, thumb, and motor winder film advance, meter or no meter, etc. I especially wanted to see if I liked or disliked the "Hasselblad type" of camera and way of working, if for no other reason than that they were unfamiliar.<br>

Fourth, I wanted to see what I thought of the 645 image format itself.</p>

<p>So the Bronica ETRSi was the best for me. If I had decided I wanted to stay with 645 and wanted interchangeable finders, but no mirror blackout, the Mamiya 645 series would have been of interest. If I liked MF and wanted a rectangular format but the 645 format was not big enough, then 6x7 or something else, maybe non-SLR, would be what I would consider.<br>

In my case what happened was what I least expected; square format, and an SLR of the SQ-series/Hasselblad 500-series type should be just fine. I can get the SQAi or SQ-B as soon as I sell my ETR stuff, but I'm not in a big hurry. I will be looking into Hasselblad further, probably renting one, but money's too tight now to get the lenses I would want, so I might wait until I can afford them. Or just go for the SQ series. Or...</p>

 

<p>Test driving a camera may not always work! Some cameras need a longer test drive!<br>

One has to be familiar with a camera, then the system. my advice from using many formats and almost every camera/system made.Not usually mine BUT the advertising agency,press room or whoever.<br>

Going to a WHOLE SYSTEM, in one go? <br>

Over a period of usage, i did not ever enjoy using the Hasselblad 500 series. Period.Hateful to load, variable mechanical shutters on each lens, making exposure of slide film for pro usage a nightmare of bracketing. I could NEVER really focus the animal with ease. The shutter problem was in Mamiya C series also.<br>

I purchased a Pentax 6x7 system. Lenses, tubes, extenders, lens adapters.The whole thing.I learnt i did NOT like the rectangular format. I hated it! I traded the whole outfit to Samys in LA, walked out with a NEW Leica-M6 TTL which i used more in 1 month, than 20+ years with Pentax.<br>

The use of a "cheap" lab as by Walmart not an option where i live, in Canada. I had problems getting good work, before year 2000. The "PRO" labs usually used out dated equipment but good printers and processors. The newer "1-Hr." Labs were way more consistent! Only they did NOT process 120/220.<br>

My Medium Format camera. A Rolleiflex, some filters and a lenshood.</p>

<p><strong>The SQ-A back has a left and right pull tab AND a button for release.</strong><br>

No it doesn't - it merely has a single button which has to be depressed before lifting off the back!!</p>

 

<p><em>I have (a long time ago) decided against Bronica. I could see the difference both the Hasselblad camera (and rest of the system) and the Zeiss lenses made.</em><br>

How does the camera make a difference to the image quality?</p>

<p>Hey Zack,<br>

Sorry you had so much trouble finding the information you need.<br>

This little video gives a quick walk through of the basic features of an SQ-A. <a href="

link</a><br>

Around the 7:34 mark he takes the back off briefly, and you can see how easy it is in practice. The SQ-A/SQ system works for me.<br>

The video creator actually took the time to do 4 videos (I think) that provide a wealth of information to anyone considering the SQ, or for someone who is new to the system.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>