Mamiya 6 vs Bronica

[andre_noble5]

Mr Isaac,

 

I want to give you some hard learned advice. The bronica sqai is a wonderful camera body, the film backs are well made, and the

lenses built like precision tanks. BUT, there are two. Things to think carefully about: 6x6 often gets cropped to 6x4.5. Also, while david

Henderson and other will debate me, the resolution performance of the PS series lenses, despite their Japanese pedigree and

superior build, is not breath taking.

 

But, if you have access to a drum scanner or imacon or nikon 9000 that can squeeze every last ounce from a bronica ps lens, then I

say go for it.

 

However if you want to get really serious go for a 6x7 camera such as the bronica GS 1 or Mamiya 7. If size is not a concern, a

Mamiya RB or RZ should be explored for superior optics and the convenience of the rotating back

[david_smith35]

<p>There is nothing wrong with the 6 x 6 format, especially if you take transparencies. The Zenzanon lenses are also equally as good as their Zeiss counterparts irrespective of what others say.</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Z6Oa"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=601533">David Smith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jul 27, 2011; 02:24 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Zenzanon lenses are also equally as good as their Zeiss counterparts irrespective of what others say.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My goal isn't to start a flame war here, but that statement seems to read like you're saying 'my opinion is the only one that matters.' Unless you have solid, documented evidence, your opinion is no more valid than mine or anyone else's.</p>

<p>My experience - and this is from research and discussions with users, along with personal use - not lab tests - is that certain versions of the Zeiss (or Schneider) lenses are absoutely better than their Japanese counterparts. A modern Zeiss is better than a modern Zenzanon, and an old Zeiss is better than an old Zenzanon. However, an old Zeiss is worse than a modern Zenzanon. So if your budget is (for sake of argument) $500 per lens, the lenses that you can buy will be better if you buy Japanese. If you're asking which is better in general terms, it's the German ones.</p>

<p>Bear in mind too that when I say 'better', I mean that is the concensus of knowledgable people whom I have spoken to. If you personally prefer one over the other, than disregard what is 'better.' The Hassy C lenses are supposedly the worst, but I like them the best, as I mostly shoot black and white, and I think the more interesting tonality of those lenses is worth giving up the more accurate colour correction of the newer lenses.</p>

 

[a.d._isaac]

Thanks for all the very informative feedback. I'm glad this thread generated so much discussion.

 

I wound up getting a Bronica 6x6 SQ with an 80mm lens, speed grip and metered prism finder. And I will certainly let you all know how it goes. I

[david_smith35]

<p>"My goal isn't to start a flame war here"<br>

Well, you seem to be doing a good job. You criticise me for giving an informed opinion, and then proceed to do the same thing yourself. For most practical purposes (and in my experience) the two brands of lenses are equally good, and I have no preference. My guess is that if you displayed 2 dozen tranparencies on a lightbox (or projected them) half taken with Zeiss lenses, and half with Zenzanon lenses, you wouldn't be able to pick one from the other.<br>

My only aim was to counter the ill-informed and biased opinions of the anti Bronica brigade</p>

[greg_campbell1]

<p>Adding a metering prism and winder (thumb or powered) to the Bronica box will transform it from an awkward studio camera into a large, auto exposing, handheld SLR. The kit won't be quite as elegant as the RF Mamiya, but will work just as well and can be had for a fraction of the price. I don't think the learning curve is steep at all. You will may to practice loading the film, and shoud give the manual a read before proceeding. <br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/sq.asp">http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/sq.asp</a><br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-Ai.pdf">http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-Ai.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-A.pdf">http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-A.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-B.pdf">http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-B.pdf</a></p>

<p>My thoughts on the SQ lineup: The bodies are built using a lot of 'plastic.' They aren't flimsy or cheap, but aren't indestructible bricks. Compare them to a modern mid-high end DSLR. The lenses, OTOH, are very robust; lots of steel, brass, whatever, and plenty sharp. The film back and prisms are somewhere in the middle; plenty of metal, but it's not applied in tank-like quantities. Overall, the system is entirely competent and is - due in part to the ignorant 'Blad Snobbery you've seen here - an excellent value. Buy a nice Bronica kit for $500+ and spend the money you just saved on a photo-vacation! </p>

[david_smith35]

<p>Greg, adding a prism and winder significantly adds to the weight of the system, but that's just personal choice. Regarding your comments on the construction - the SQAi (and SQB) do use a polycarbonate outer shell as opposed to a metal one on the SQA. Having used both, I can't say one was better than the other, but the SQAi is a little more durable due to the fact that there isn't any paint to wear off.<br>

I agree with your comments on the lenses - you rarely find build quality of this standard in optics nowadays. The backs are predominantley metal, but do use a certain amount of plastic in the film holder.</p>

<p> </p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>AD Isaac, glad to hear you took the plunge. The Bronica PS 80 lens is good.<br>

<strong>Here are others that I recommend</strong> (all the Bronica PS wide angles are good - I used them all):<br>

<strong>PS 40mm</strong> (sharp, excellent color)<br>

PS 50mm Ditto<br>

<strong>PS 65m</strong>m Very Sharp - The best Lens in the series, I think!<br>

<strong>PS 180</strong> Good Sharpness, close focusing to 1 meter. Best portrait lens<br>

I did not like the PS 200mm. But its lack of high resolution may make it perfect for portraiture<br>

Enjoy!</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>PS 65m</strong>m Very Sharp - The best Lens in the series, I think!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That resonates with my experience, although my experience with the PS lenses is odd, and limited to just 2 (65mm and 80mm). I say "odd" because I never shot them on a Bronica camera: I remounted the lens cells (which are threaded for standard size 0 shutters) into Mamiya Press shutter-barrel assemblies, and shot them instead on a Mamiya Universal with 6x9 backs.</p>

<p>The 80mm PS delivered a good sharp contrasty 6x7 format image, or panoramic cropped 4x9, but 6x8 was a push - as vignetting was kicking in.</p>

<p>The 65mm PS on the other hand easily filled 6x8, and even at 6x9 vignetting was only faintly noticeable, when well stopped down. And the image quality was top notch. Even wide open, it had very low aberrations.</p>

[mediumformat]

<p>As a recent user of Bronica equipment (SQ-AM with 80/2.8 and 50/3.5 S lenses), I see no difference to 80/2.8 Zeiss Planar from the Hassy I used to shoot. These are all looking at transparencies on light table with 6x loupe.<br>

Here's a chap on the Kiev list that has done a lot of comparisons of medium format lenses, including Zeiss and Bronica. I just don't see any difference in the 80/2.8 Zeiss compared to 80/2.8 Bronica:<br>

<a href="http://kievaholic.com/LensTestsNormal2/index.html">http://kievaholic.com/LensTestsNormal2/index.html</a><br>

For the most part, sharpness will be more affected by use/non-use of a solid tripod and mirror-slap than apparent lens sahrpness. In the real world, it's a wash.</p>

 

[marc_batters]

<p>A.D.Isaac, Very happy for you in choosing the Bronica. <br /> I think you will find that the learning curve with the Bronica SLR, will be a bit faster then it would have been with the Mamiya Rangefinder. <br /> In the future, I think you will find the SLR, will more easily enable a broader range of versatility, and allow a quicker mastery of varied shooting situations, then the rangefinder would have.<br /> Welcome to Medium Format. Enjoy the journey!</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Ray-<br>

Interesting conversion. I expect that a GS-1 lens would cover 6x9 then.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Jeff,<br>

Yes, I expect it would cover 6x9. I never had a GS-1 lens to try out.</p>

<p>My motivation was that, with the exception of the 100mm lenses (f2.8 and f3.5), the Mamiya Press lenses all have rather slow maximum apertures - especially the wide-angles (one f5.6 and two f6.3). So my two conversions gave me f2.8 and f4 wide-angles. Neither had the edge performance of my rather awesome Press 50mm f6.3 though!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You can't make general assumptions though.<br>The fact that one lens designed for a smaller format covers a larger one does not mean that another lens made for another format would cover a larger format again too. Not even two different lenses made for the same format will be the same in this respect.<br>So it's a try-and-see thingy whether a GS-1 lens would cover 6x9 (and if one does, there's no guarantee that another one does too, or that if one doesn't any other one would also not.)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Zack,<br><br>Concerning modern and old Zeiss lenses: there indeed are modern Zeiss lenses, and if you wish to use them you should get a Contax 645 or 35 mm Contax, or now that Contax is no more and they make their lenses for other mounts too, any of those brands.<br>But there's almost no old vs modern when Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad are concerned. Most old C lenses are the same optics as their later counterparts. I use both old C (the "chrome" ones) and later Zeiss Hasselblad lenses, and there is no difference in rendition of tones or colour, nor sharpness and contrast.

[ondebanks]

<p>Q.G.:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can't make general assumptions though.<br />The fact that one lens designed for a smaller format covers a larger one does not mean that another lens made for another format would cover a larger format again too. Not even two different lenses made for the same format will be the same in this respect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Err...I would have thought that all of that was already perfectly clear from my reporting that two same-format 6x6 PS lenses were able to cover to different degrees - 6x7 and 6x8 respectively.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So it's a try-and-see thingy whether a GS-1 lens would cover 6x9 (and if one does, there's no guarantee that another one does too, or that if one doesn't any other one would also not.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also did the same thing with Mamiya 645 70mm f2.8 leaf shutter lens cells. It covered 6x6 well but it was running out of steam on 6x7. So my experience with this limited sample is that you can push coverage up by one format increment, or even two in the case of the PS 65mm. So I would expect every GS1 lens to at least hit 6x8, and maybe some hit 6x9. It is definitely "a try-and-see thingy" but as I said, "I never had a GS-1 lens to try out", and I would not make a bet on the outcome for any particular lens.</p>

<p>Further data: another 6x7 camera, the Mamiya RB67, was of course designed for 6x7 - initially. Years later, (apparently to counter the new 6x8 format Fuji GX680), Mamiya brought out 6x8 backs and enlarged the rear baffle to pass a 6x8 image, but the same designed-for-6x7 lenses were still used successfully on these 6x8 backs.</p>