Which 6x6 Camera - Bronica vs TLR vs Mamiya 6

Thanks Jerome, that is really helpful :-) I will never be a studio shooter and candid shooting is my usual style.

<p>I enjoy the sole idea of having only one lens, it makes things so much simpler (and perhaps cheaper?), I don't have to either carry too much equipment or worry about which lens to use. I also found something amazing when using my Rolleiflex for street photography or anniversaries, people love it, and they always look very carefully when I swap a roll, just as if I was performing a magic trick. I think it wouldn't surprise them if a bunny was coming out of the box when I open it to change the roll.</p>

<p>Emily, a rangefinder or TLR will produce a more consistantly sharp image if you must hand hold. An SLR will be more difficult (but not impossible) to hand old due to the higher level of camera induced vibration.<br>

I wouldn't worry about the waist level finder - you will soon become accustomed to the laterally reversed image - having said that, it's much easier on a tripod!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't like the right/left reversal thing with TLRs, replace the waist level finder with a prism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Prisms for 6x6 are very heavy</p>

And yet again that camera vibration thing pops up on PNet... <br>When handholding, the tiny vibrations the camera itself may produce are nothing compared to the what your 'steady' hands make the whole thing go through. Many orders of magnitude worse.<br>And even when used on a tripod, i.e. when your hands are no longer allowed to shake the camera, the vibrations that originate inside the camera itself are not enough to have an effect on the image.<br>So forget about that. <br><br>As far as weight and size of a 6x6 SLR is a concern, it must be noted that a TLR is not necessarily lighter or smaller. A Bronica SQ or a Hasselblad are very compact camera, about the same size as a Rolleiflex TLR.<br>They do weigh a bit more, yes. But not kilos more, and unless your trying to reduce the weight of your pack dramatically, doing things like taking chocolate bars out of their wrappers to save a fraction of a gram, nothing to worry about.<br>It's not an elephant vs mouse thing.<br><br>You may or may not like how any type of camera handles. That's something more depending on personal preferences than the type of camera itself.<br>But for the part that is camera type dependent: the suggestion that MF SLRs like the Bronica SQ are only suited for indoor work, with a lot of patience, is nonsense. They are more ergonomical, faster and easier to use than a Rolleiflex (and most other) TLRs that need both your left and right hand to operate the thing in turn.<br>But for ease of use, the rangefinder will be the best.

<p>As a Mamiya user (Mamiya 6 and RZ), I can tell you about my biased thoughts...</p>

<p>The Mamiya 6 system is irreplaceable. Very fast, way easier to use >>and to carry<<, light, compact, but with the drawbacks (and benefits) of being a RF camera. It actually is an aperture priority camera, but most of the times I end using a hand held meter... but the built in metering system works if needed.<br /> The minimum focus distance sem to me more of a "theoretical" issue (macro with a RF seem somewhat silly to me... ), and if your main goal is "hand held", IMHO there is no better choice than a RF. You will have always a minimum focus distance, but it has never been a real issue for my needs.</p>

<p>I find to focus and framing hand held on a WLF a bit difficult (actually way difficult), -in comparison- with a RF or with a prism finder.</p>

<p>If I were buying a 6x6 reflex, I think my choice would be a Hasselblad. They are quite small in comparison to the RZ, and from what I see with loads of lenses and accesories available secondhand. They are of course pricier than Bronicas and others, but for the actual prices I think top quality has never been that cheap. And you don`t need the latest models and lenses... I know nothing about Hasselblad, but I believe a 80 Planar wiill work perfectly mounted on any box (a gliding mirror is not needed, nor OTF, nor a motorized winding mechanism... etc.), and there are many "basic" models at good prices. Same for lenses. If you really want to shoot, a "basic" box, a 80 Planar and a back in user condition is not that expensive. <br />If you want to shoot hand held, you`ll have helicoid focusing, and their prism finders are "reasonably" sized (in comparison to the huge RB/RZ ones). And you will be glad when looking for the highest image quality with the camera mounted on a tripod.</p>

<p>Handholding a camera does not in any way negate the effect of vibrations produced within the camera - they are cumulative and have an effect on the ability to hand hold.<br>

Of course the vibrations produced inside the camera when mounted on a tripod are not enough to affect the image. The tripod holds the camera steady!</p>

Ignoring, for simplicity's sake, that the result of the cumulation can be a reduction, that vibrations can cancel each other:<br>They are cumulative indeed, David. Like noise: a silent yet audible hum will still contribute to the sound pressure level when all you hear is a kilo of dynamite exploding 2 meters away without you being able to distinguish the hum in the sound you hear. It's indeed still there in the loud bang you hear. But it would be silly to contribute the ensuing deafness to that low hum, would it not?<br>Orders of magnitude, David.<br><br>Remove that gigantic problem, and you're left with the tiny problem. When a camera is isolated from whatever in the outside world was moving it before, fixed on top of a sturdy tripod, the only vibrations left to worry about are the ones that are on 'this side' of the isolator. So it's not quite a matter of "of course the vibrations produced inside [etc.] The tripod holds the camera steady!" The thing that matters then is the magnitude of forces creating those internal vibrations compared to the mass of the thing they have to move. Simplified: will a mirror flipping up and coming to a sudden stop be enough to make the camera jump? The answer is that it will not. The energy released inside the camera that has to be dissipated is not enough to cause problems (except in a few rare instances perhaps).<br>So it's not because the camera is on a tripod. It's because there isn't enough energy to cause noticeable problems.

<p>Emily, don't overthink this. All cameras have their pros and cons. Pick one and learn to use it. Any good quality camera will give you good results. It does not really make any difference if it is a RF, SLR or TLR. Find one that works for you and start taking pictures. You will soon discover for yourself any limitations and how to work around them. I have a Rollieiflex 2.8E and a Mamiya 6 and have used both to take pictures of kids. They both work fine. I find that the Mamiya is best as a handheld camera and the Rollei is best on a tripod. You will find what works best for you. The most important thing is to start taking pictures now. Your daughter is growing up and you don't want to regret missing the pictures you did not get.</p>

<p>Whichever camera you will get, make sure it is fully functional - preferably recently serviced. MF cameras you are looking at are 20-70 years old and can frustrate a beginner with never ending list of malfunctions that you discover after you developed your film - this is my own experience from few years back. Also remember that you will need a reliable hand held light meter, majority of older MF has none. Personally, I use the most a folding camera I got from a guy on ebay, he goes by name certo6. His cameras are serviced, ready for reliable use and not expensive.</p>

<p>Hi Emily , I own both a complete bronica SQAI system with several lenses as well as a Rolleiflex 3.5 tlr. While the bronica has more flexibility 're/ lenses, the fact that it's battery dependent and relatively heavy has it sitting more and more in the closet at the moment. Get the rolleiflex. I'm also going to echo one of the previous posters remarks about getting a hassy because that is what I really want anyway :) good luck with your decision and have fun!!!</p>

<p>The cameras you have under consideration are very different and have their own pros and cons (which you should be aware of from a good photography book that describes these pros and cons) and only you can decide which is really best for you. From what you describe, I think you might prefer an MF easy to hand hold and operate quickly to one with lots of potential for various photographic approaches (macro, long telephoto, etc.) other than everyday situations.</p>

<p>If the camera is in very good shape when you buy it (I prefer spending a bit more on a well cared for and often near mint camera than a real bargain but which has been badly treated and ripe for additional problems) you shouldn't worry about certain fragilities of some cameras (Ex. the focus lever on the Minolta Autocord, the winding mechanism of the Mamiya 6, etc.) as if you are reasonably careful of your equipment it should last well. Even if you live far from a repair centre the time of turn around of some repair centres is as much related to their work schedule as to the time of transport. Of course, some cameras, like the Hasselblad, are well built, but a friend who works with a pro repair clinic here sees a lot of them in for service, although mainly from pros who use their cameras intensely.</p>

<p>I have no problems using rangefinder cameras and they do not limit my range of photography, probably as I do little macro work and even less long telephoto photography. They are rapid acting, silent, low vibration (no mirror flap) and precise enough for my needs. Among the Monolta Autocord, a Mamiya 6 RF camera and a Fuji 6x9 RF camera, I use mostly the Mamiya 6 as it is the most reactive and very silent, although for large prints the Fuji is my second most used camera (a bit more clunky, large and noisy compared to the 6 and really best on a tripod).</p>

<p>While I have had to send the 6 in for repairs (mostly minor and not needing parts) a few times I am more or less confident of its serviceability. Using also digital, it sometimes sits on the shelf for a month or two. Then, it is best to exercise the shutter every month or so at each shutter speed to assure continuance of operation. This is true for all cameras.</p>

<p>Finally, while I haven't looked at prices for a few years now, the Autocord TLR (c1955-60 model) can be had for about 250-350$ in excellent to near mint condition, a Mamiya 6 with 75mm lens (c1990-95?) for about 1200-1400$ in near mint condition, while I believe a Rolleiflex recent f3.5 or f2.8 (older than the Mamiya, some very old) will probably cost you well above a $1000 unless you go for a simpler Rolleicord model. The Bronica may be available at a price closer to the Autocord (or Yashicamat 124G which has a slightly less performing lens), but I do not know of the quality of the Zenzanon optics which may be very good. How the camera has been cared for is as important as a near mint or excellent cosmetic condition and you should carefully inspect the lens for defects, including interior dust, grease smearing on the diaphragm blades, element separation, fungus, haze and scratches. Good luck!</p>

<p>Just to clarify, can you see a blink (or head turn) in 30ms...yep you sure can. I shot weddings and portraits for a living for nearly 40 years. Did I use TLRs? Yep. Did I also use SLRs? Yep. But I used SLRs on a tripod so I could look over the camera at my subject(s) to look for blinks etc. OP suggests she doesn't/won't use a tripod so this "fix" is not an option for her.<br>

By the way, 30ms is approximate time mirror is up with <strong>some</strong> SLRs. But with Hassy, Mamiya, and many others, it's until you wind on to the next frame. Which is a lot longer.<br>

We're all showing our biases, but the OP sounds like an intelligent lady so I'm sure she can sort what works for her.<br>

This thread has been an interesting read. Nice to get four+ pages in without a single curmudgeon showing up!<br>

JD</p>

Robert Bowring, you win favourite comment :-P You're right, I have been overthinking it, mostly because it is a

considerable monetary investment and as a stay at home mum, it takes me time and patience (and a bit of wheedling :-P)

to save up the funds. But also I think because my gut is drawn to one thing and my brain is telling me all the reasons it

doesn't make sense. I kind of want something that I feel excited to learn my way around. As much as a camera as just a

tool, I think the way you connect with your tool can change the way you photograph - that's one if the things I love about

film, feeling more connected to what I'm creating.

 

I'm like a cross between a philosopher and a gadget-head :-P

 

As much as everyone responding has their own biases, I actually really like reading everyone's biases. If someone says "I

like this because..." and their "because" doesn't fit the way I work, then I have still learnt something useful ya know?

Even if my conclusion is different to theirs.

 

Really great thread, thanks everyone!

<p>"They are cumulative indeed",<br>

And that's why the vibrations inside a camera affect the ability to hand hold. Period.</p>

<p>Never heard of a Bronica EC. Did you mean Bronica ETR? The ETR is a 645 format SLR rather than the 6x6 Bronica SQ. Smaller, lighter and less expensive so it might be a compromise between the size/weight of a TLR and the versatility of an SLR. But be sure to get a prism finder with it rather than waist level. Very tricky to shoot verticals with a waist level finder.<br /><br />The SLR is the most versatile of the cameras you list but as you can see from the replies, each has its merits and its fans. I own two TLRs, a Yashicamat 124-G that's very good and also lightweight. Other is a Mamiya 330, which has interchangeable lenses and finders and various features but is also larger and heavier. Never tried a MF rangefinder but I have both a Canonet GIII QL17 and Leica M3 35mm rangefinders that are both great.</p>

<p>Thomas K mentioned the folding cameras - a good alternative to the cameras you mentioned in the opening post. They're lightweight, compact and very quiet. Some are more convenient than others, offering rangefinders. The lowest priced models have simple optical viewfinders, no rangefinder, and guess-focusing. It's about like the differences between the high end Polaroid folding cameras of the 1960s-'70s, and the simpler P&S type plastic body Polaroids.</p>

<p>Be wary of the very inexpensive folders listed on ebay. These are often sold by folks who don't know much about cameras and tend to regard only cosmetics. They may describe the camera as "minty" but it may need servicing to be usable. The most common problems are bellows with light leaks, focus rings jammed by old dried grease and shutters that are sluggish or inoperable from gummy lubricants. I paid around $25 for an Agfa Isolette around 12 years ago. It was good cosmetically, as the seller said, but needed an overhaul. I bought another for around $10 from another ebay vendor and it was completely inoperable and unrepairable. It was an oddball with a combination shutter/iris with blades made of some sort of fiber composite rather than metal. After several decades the fiber was brittle and turned to dust. Presumably it was made during the depths of Germany's economy when they turned to ersatz production using unskilled workers and whatever materials they could find cheaply. It's just a shelf decorator, although I might eventually convert it to pinhole use.</p>

<p>I overhauled the better of the two Agfa Isolette folders myself several years ago and it's still working fine. But it was a very simple camera and not the most desirable if you'd prefer a built in rangefinder and conventionally placed shutter release. The simplest Agfa Isolettes had viewfinders that were somewhat distorted, with focus rings that required estimating distances, and the shutter release on some, like mine, are an oddly located lever mounted toward the front of the camera near the lens. Fortunately I have long fingers and can operate the shutter release lever with my pinky finger - but it's an odd way to hold a camera. I also have a Rowi rangefinder that fits in the accessory shoe, but the rangefinder is in feet, the lens is in meters, and I usually don't bother. I just guesstimate the distance and stop down for more DOF to make up the difference. It's pretty much like using a slightly fancy Holga, Diana or similar toy camera, minus the soft focus lens with tons of vignetting. Even the simplest, cheapest folders tended to have very good lenses, compared with the plastic toy cameras.</p>

<p>Thomas K mentioned <a href="http://www.certo6.com/">certo6</a> (Jurgen Kreckels). His website has plenty of good information that can help in choosing a medium format 6x6 or larger folding camera.</p>

<p>You might also check photo.net's classic cameras forum. Lots of archived threads on folding cameras and recommendations from folks who own and use them.</p>

<p>Emily, for what it's worth, there are a lot of good images made hand held. Most of mine are hand-held. You have to be careful in technique. How you stand and hold the camera. Use higher shutter speeds.</p>

<p>No, the image quality hand held will not be as good as with a tripod. Critical examination will show this. I've been surprised at times. </p>

<p>But, there are a lot of good images from hand-held shots.</p>

 

<p>No Bronica.<br>

Ever.<br>

Unreliable.</p>

<p>Emily,<br>

If you primarily use the camera handheld then a MF rangefinder is ideal. On a tripod these cameras are awful though so be warned. When shooting handheld at anything slower than 1/125th you are at greater risk of blur with an SLR though. Of course shooting on a tripod with an SLR at any speed is quite nice from a compositional standpoint as its WYSIWYG notwithstanding the instant moment of exposure arguments as previously laid out. A mamiya 6 Rangefinder SLR is only going to give you 75 to 80 percent viewing when focused near infinity so be sure you understand your tolerance for this. I shot a Mamiya 7 for many years along with a Bronica Etrsi and they are completely different beasts. For tripod work the Bronica SLR ruled the day but was garbage handheld at just about any speed in my opinion. <br>

And in response the above post: Bronica SLR's: Utterly reliable in my experience Mamiya 7 RF: utterly unreliable in regards to the fragile focusing mechanism that frequently needed realigning by a professional (strictly a camera design issue: rangefinders are fragile beasts).</p>

 

<p>No clue what the OP's local repair resources are but buying the newest MF gear you can afford doesn't seem far wrong. Whatever their virtues, relics do require large and small fixes that simply may not be available, which seems to rule out folders, TLRs and ancient quirky SLRs like the Bronica EC. Late model Bronica SQ series kits based on the SQ-Ai and the SQ-B or even 645 Bronica ETRSi or Mamiya Pro/ProTL kits might be better value and far less frustrating.</p>

<p>Mamiya offered TLRs with interchangeable lenses, the last of which being the C330. They are heavier than Rolleflex and Yashica TLRs, but offer lenses ranging from 55mm to 250mm, each with its own built in leaf shutter. Lens selection, though is still limited compared to what is available for Hasselblad. If budget permits I'd take a look at the Hasselblads first.</p>

<p>Quite a dilemma. The good news is that all of your three choices can produce great pictures. I don't have any of these, though I have similar cameras and here are my impressions, for what they're worth:<br>

Bronica S2 - similar to the EC. This is a heavy but compact camera that produces great pictures with its Nikkor lens. The one issue is the very loud shutter. If the EC has the same shutter it may be a mark against it if you intend to shoot in areas where it might disturb people. The S2 has a slow synch speed too (1/30) - not sure if the EC improved on this.<br>

Mamiya C330 and Flexaret - TLRs that I use instead of a Rollei (that I would love to own). TLRs are fun to shoot with and produce great pictures. The C330 is large and heavy, but the Rollei (like the Flexaret) will be fine for handholding. Parallax is a slight issue, but I don't find it to be a problem.<br>

Rangefinders - The Mamiya 6 is another camera that I would love to have if I had the cash. I have many other rangefinders including a 645 Fuji and the aforementioned Rapid Omega (great camera) and find them fun to use but perhaps not so satisfying as being able to see through a lens. By the way, if you do pick up a 35mm RF to try it out, I would look into one that works in full manual (no battery) like a Konica or Olympus RC/SP. The Electro can have electrical problems and will not work without them working properly.<br>

Bottom line. If I were you I would probably go with the Rollei with the EC a close second.<br>

Best of luck to you.</p>

<p><em>Bottom line. If I were you I would probably go with the Rollei with the EC a close second.</em></p>

<p>Old Bronica focal plane shutter cameras like the S series and the EC strike me as a remarkably poor choice. They're very difficult to get repaired in N. America, much less NZ. The EC had a quirky split reflex mirror that's not known for its durability. Sure the old Nikkor lenses are good but it's part of a system from the early '60s that dead-ended with the EC a decade later.</p>

<p>Emily, welcome to photo.net. There's a lot of good advice here, and you don't need more, but here goes: the condition of the camera is more important than which camera you choose.</p>

<p>This is important to you if you live a long way from whoever sells your camera. Try to buy from a reputable dealer, who can give you a guarantee that it's in top optical and mechanical condition.</p>

<p>The Rolleiflex will probably be due for a clean/lube/adjust. If the lenses aren't perfectly matched up for focus, you will find your images are soft at wider apertures. Overhauls by the top technicians are expensive, and would be more than the cost of the camera-- something to consider. Also, the New Standard will have uncoated lenses. If you're going with a Rollei, I'd look for something newer.</p>

<p>If you're shooting a fast-moving kid, I'd go with the Mamiya 6, provided the rangefinder is in good adjustment. Rangefinders in general are well suited to street, documentary, and people photography. You can track subjects easily and focus rapidly, and Mamiya rangefinder glass has an excellent reputation. (Also, I guess you know there are two cameras called Mamiya 6, separated by about 50 years. The latter-day version is still pretty expensive.)</p>

<p>Let us know what you end up doing. Hang up some pictures in your photo.net portfolio so we can see what you're up to.</p>

<p> </p>