What made you choose your brand of MF camera

[hjoseph7]

<p>I purchased my firs MF camera a Mamiya 645 about 8 years ago, because I heard about the higher quality of negatives you can with those types of cameras. Unlike my 35mm cameras, I didn't do much research on it before I purchased it. Orignally I had planned to purchase a Hassleblad from the estate of a friend, but my pockets were not deep enough so I went for the Mamiya 645. I think that was a pretty good decision, so I also invested in some lenses throughout the years. Since then, I have switched to the 645 1000s, but plan to move up to the 645 Pro or maybe the 645AF in the future if finances allow.<br>

My question is what made you decide to get a Bronica, over a Pentax, over a Hassy etc. I'm not trying to start any wars, just trying to get a good idea of the <strong>features</strong> one camera has over the other. They are all very good cameras with excellent lenses, but what was the deciding factor in making your purchase. </p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>My decision was driven by the following:<br>

1. Reliability and durability<br>

2. Availability of lenses and accessories needed<br>

3. Enough money in the bak (at the time) to allow buying any available option<br>

4. Availability of convenient repair/servicing<br>

5. Prestige and ego satisfaction</p>

[DWScott]

<p>You're right, they are all good. But it is instructive to see how folks chose their gear. I know when I got my first MF camera (a Yashica) I just leaped into the fray and didn't know what I was doing or what to look for. It was a good introduction and helped me make an informed choice when I wanted to get more serious about MF.</p>

<p>My brand is Bronica, specifically the ETR/ETRsi which shoots 645. A bunch of factors came into play, and I made my choice through research and trial.<br>

The reasons are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Modular system. I learned from the Yashica that I liked using a waist level finder. I knew that there would be times when I wanted a prism or a metered prism. Modular lets me choose. Same with wanting a speed grip, or a power winder, or a simple crank winder.</li>

<li>Interchangeable backs. Lets me pick what kind of film to load, when, with no compromises. Changing backs at the end of a roll lets me keep shooting with a break of only a few seconds.</li>

<li>645 format. I found I mostly cropped my 6x6 negatives to fit them on 8x10 and 16x20 paper. So the 645 format gave me the same quality as 6x6, with the bonus of more frames on a roll of film.</li>

<li>Lens IQ. I carefully looked at as many photos as I could, from Bronicas, Pentax 645 and 67, Mamiyas, Hassies, etc. I consistently liked the contrast, colour and tonality of the images shot on a Bronica, especially the 75mm and 150mm. I actually did not like the images from the Mamiyas -- I found them somewhat harsh and busy, more like a Nikon lens. The Bronica MC lenses seemed to render more like my favourite Takumar (Pentax) lenses.</li>

<li>Lens selection. I wanted an interchangeable lens SLR that offered a wide range of focal lengths, including primes and zooms.</li>

<li>Lens speeds. The 645 cameras have generally faster lenses than the larger formats, and Bronica offered a 50mm, 60mm and 75mm with f/2.8.</li>

<li>Flash sync speed. I knew I wanted to shoot outdoor portraits with fill flash. The ability to sync at all shutter speeds pushed me towards Bronica and away from Pentax.</li>

<li>Electronic shutter. I like the predictability of an electronic shutter, and it's ability to hold an accurate shutter speed over a long life.</li>

<li>Price/Age/Condition. I could buy a reasonably new Bronica ETRsi in good condition, and I knew that I could not afford a Hassie of similar age and condition. I would have to buy an older Hassie and budget for a CLA, and knowing that the equipment would be more worn out.</li>

</ul>

 

[sfcole]

<p>Hasselblad because:<br>

-leaf shutter<br>

-mirror pre-release (a big draw for me)<br>

-availability of components and repair<br>

-resale value</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Quality, both 'optical' and build quality.<br>Features are hugely overrated. There are three technical parameters involved in making good pictures: aperture, shutterspeed and focus. So any camera that allows you (i.e. does not mar, say, focus by too relaxed tolerances in body length, etc.) to set these three will do.<br>There are (and i will get flak for this) three makers who produce good quality SLR cameras: Mamiya (the 6x7 series), Rollei and Hasselblad. Different enough to allow less important (or completely unimportant) features influence a decision while not compromising the important thingy.

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Bronica SQ-A<br>

Good reputation, works well, affordable.</p>

<p>To be fair, I got this long after I stopped using film for professional work. Just a hobby cam for me to play with. Surprisingly, I came to appreciate it as much as the Hassies I previously used. A fine, all-around MF system.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>I like the Rolleiflex TLR because it is sort of a combination of range finder and SLR. You don't have a flopping mirror but you view through a lens that makes it seem like SLR.<br>

Dennis</p>

[craigd]

<p>My first question was which "medium format" to choose, 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7 being the most common options (though of course there are others: 6x9, etc.). It seemed to me that if I really wanted to see the maximum benefit of medium format, I should go with one of the larger sizes, so that eliminated 6x4.5. Some people said 6x6 wasn't a good choice because you'd just crop down to something close to 6x4.5 anyway (this isn't really true, but at that point I didn't see the advantages of the square format). So I chose 6x7.</p>

<p>The next question was which 6x7 camera to get. The most respected options seemed to be the Mamiya RB/RZ67 and the Pentax 67 series. My research found that both had excellent lenses and good reputations for reliability. I decided on the Pentax because (1) its "big Spotmatic" design was familiar, (2) there was a shift lens available for it (though I haven't bought one, it's nice to know that the option exists), and (3) I was able to get it at a lower price than the Mamiya. Of the four versions of the P67 (6x7 without MLU, 6x7 with MLU, 67, and 67 II) I chose the 67 because I wanted to be sure I had MLU and I didn't care about aperture-priority AE and the other new features of the 67 II. (And the 67 II was more expensive.)</p>

<p>I now own four P67 lenses (45mm, 55mm, 90mm, 200mm, all in late versions) and two finders (the rigid magnifying vertical hood and the TTL metering pentaprism), plus a set of extension tubes. Overall I'm happy with the 67. Its biggest annoyance, for me, is that I have to accept either roughly 90% viewfinder coverage (pentaprism) or reversed images (vertical hood -- especially painful in portrait mode, where the image is upside down -- the Mamiya's rotating back would surely be more convenient for vertical compositions). Also, the focal plane shutter and mirror slap are truly amazing in terms of noise and recoil. Not unmanageable (the P67 can be shot hand-held at 1/250 sec. or faster), but impressive nevertheless. Some people find it frustrating that the P67's maximum flash sync speed is a nearly useless 1/30 sec. (unless you use one of the limited selection of P67 leaf-shutter lenses), but since I hardly ever shoot with flash, it doesn't bother me.</p>

<p>More recently I ventured into 6x6 when the opportunity came my way to pick up a vintage Mamiyaflex C2 TLR in excellent condition at a very reasonable price. I discovered that the square format is actually very pleasant to work with, and of course since it's a square, the whole question of portrait vs. landscape goes away. The TLR is a fine camera too, but at close distances the parallax problem becomes quite acute. The photographer looks through a lens located 5cm above the taking lens. The difference is hardly noticeable with distant subjects, but at close range you have to learn by experience (starting from rules of thumb you can find online) how to adjust your framing correctly for the taking lens.</p>

<p>The parallax irritation was on my mind when yet another buying opportunity appeared (these things just keep happening to me): my local camera store had a Hasselblad 500 C/M on consignment along with two lenses (80mm f/2.8 Planar and 150mm f/4 Sonnar), a 45 degree meterless finder, and an A12 back, to which I've since added a second A12 back and a 16mm extension tube. This gives me 6x6 without the parallax issue, plus the ability to move back and forth between unfinished rolls of film (which I can't easily do with any other camera I have). To me, the weirdest thing about the Hassy is its insistence on having the shutter cocked when switching lenses, but this is easy enough to adapt to. It's also a minor annoyance that the viewfinder stays blacked out after you release the shutter.</p>

<p>I like all of these cameras for their particular strengths. For general use, the Hasselblad is my favorite, but the Pentax is useful when a rectangular but non-square frame is desired. The TLR's main advantage is its nearly silent operation (no mirror slap, no focal plane shutter, just the subtle click of the leaf shutter) and the fact that many people these days don't recognize it as a camera, which seems like it should be advantageous for street photography (hmm... I should give that a try).</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Quality. Lenses and body etc.<br>

Service, spares, backup.<br>

Useabilty.<br>

Features; to a point, the fewer the better.<br>

I have about 5 MF cameras now so after the above points came things like tlr or slr (mirror to move or not), manual or battery dependant.<br>

Price obviously plays a large part but a very cheap "bad" camera is, in the end, not cheap at all. It will cost lots in wasted film and dissapointment.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As a 35mm RF user, the step-up to an MF RF camera system was limited in choice, initially a compact Doi manufactured Plaubel Makina 670 for its fixed Nikon lens, subsequently a Mamiya 6 and its three lenses for its unique small size solution to a system RF camera and with excellent optics, then a Fuji GSW 690 III for its larger negative, important for B&W landscape and urban images and printmaking. The cameras are and have been very good tools, although I have had some trouble with the Makina(since sold)'s light meter and frame spacing and with the in-lens shutter of one of my Mamiya lenses. I am happy with my initial choices and overall the two latter cameras have proven very durable when well treated, although the frequency of their use in my case is not at the professional rate. </p>

[stp]

<p>Pentax 645NII because of reported "value" (great camera for relatively low cost) and ergonomics.<br>

Then a Mamiya 7II for light weight and superb lenses.<br>

Then a Hasselblad 501cm for superb lenses, square format, and deflated price compared to years ago.<br>

Then a Hasselblad H4D-40 because of a great deal and the advice of someone I trust, plus a desire to leave the sad state of affairs of film in my part of the world.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I currently choose Mamiya 6 as my main medium format system. I don`t even consider to shoot smaller than the square format. Lightness and compactness, electronic control, reasonable good optical quality, built in meter, and something that I didn`t expected; I fall in love with the ergonomics. I had to resign myself with the "functional" construction quality, many plastic parts and that ugly cheap look of their lenses.</p>

<p>For that reflex shots I settle on Mamiya too, with the RZ. I favour a bigger format, and the same as above; reasonable good optical quality, electronic control and a right price. Just this.</p>

<p>I`m not fond of any brand in medium format, it doesn`t matter to me if "x" or "y". I use Mamiya but I could be perfectly fine with any other brand that fulfill the conditions above. I used to have Pentax, Linhof and others... but just out of curiosity, I think one day I`d like to try a Hasselblad. Like the compact size, being a reflex. Not decided yet, I already have too many cameras.</p>

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>I got a 1937 Rolleicord from my grandfather in the late 80's. Image Quality was ...hmmmm..., but I found the square fromat very interesting. I bought a Pentacon Six in 1990 (good Zeiss Jena lenses) but lost many pictures because of ongoing mechanical problems.<br>

<br /> For a short time I had a Mamiya 330 in my mind, but the widest lens is 50mm and it has no interchangeable film back, so in 1993 I finally settled on a Bronica SQ-Ai with 40, 80, 150 and 250 PS lenses, 1.4x extender and two 6x6 backs. Besides a LF camera, which I added later, this is my MF system until now.<br>

<br /> I wanted an affordable square format camera, wide spread of focal lengths, interchangeable lenses and film backs. The Bronica lenses deliver fine results, the camera works flawlessly, I have never experienced one single problem in 18 years of use (well, I once had to replace a sealing foam at one of the backs, which was no 'problem'), so I'm happy with my decision.<br>

<br /> I seldom crop my 6x6 images; with a little time and care, I manage to get a pleasing composition within the square frame.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I had a chance to switch to another brand when my 645 conked out about a year after I purchased it. Back then I think I only had one lens the 80mm f2.8. However, I stuck with the Mamiya 645, because replacement parts were pretty easy to get. The camera had loads of accessories, the lenses were very good and cheap if you shopped around and Mamiya was still in business.</p>

<p>Hassys and Mamiya 6/7 were still way too expensive in my book, but back then I could hardly find any information on the web about the other brands, such as Rollei, Yashica, Bronica and Pentax. I heard people swear by them on this forum, but that was about it. That is why I decided to ask this question to see if there was anything I could have missed. For example, I didn't know that the Bronica had high speed sync speed, or that the Rollei was actually a semi Range Finder MF camera, fantastic stuff... </p>

[craigd]

<p>The Rolleiflex is not a "semi-rangefinder". I think what D Purdy meant was that a TLR, like a rangefinder, has parallax but no mirror slap or viewfinder blackout, but like an SLR, it gives the photographer a through-the-lens view (though not through the taking lens). It doesn't have a rangefinder. The TLR is really a distinct design; it's not the result of cross-breeding a rangefinder with an SLR. They're all different answers to the problem of being able to see the picture you're going to take in advance, and each of them has advantages and disadvantages.</p>

<p>Another way to envision a TLR is to imagine that you take two SLRs and stack them. Remove the viewfinder and mirror from the bottom camera. Remove the film compartment, shutter, and film advance mechanism from the top camera, and make its mirror non-moveable. Install film only in the bottom camera. Install lenses of the same focal length (and ideally the same maximum aperture) on both cameras, and synch their focus mechanisms so that when the top camera has an object in focus, so does the bottom camera. Now you can view through the top camera, and you have no viewfinder blackout because its mirror doesn't move, but you shoot with the bottom camera, so there is parallax between what you see and what the film sees. That's what a TLR is like.</p>

[dave_thomas8]

<p>I wanted something between 35mm and 4x5, so I researched various forums and newsgroups for some time. Finally settled on a Bronica SQ-A as good value, perfomance and availability. I have acquired 50, 65, 80 and 110 mm (1:1 macro) lenses for it, as well as four backs and a WLF, 90 and 45 degree prisms and a speed grip. I also now have a spare body so I can put two cameras together for quick switches or trouble diagnostics.</p>

<p>Over the last 3 or 4 years I've added a Yashica MAT 124G TLR, a Voigtlander Perkeo II (6x6) folder and an Ercona II (6x9) folder to make sure I have medium format for all occasions. Hey, it's a hobby! :-)</p>

<p>DaveT</p>

[nathan_bonsal]

<p>I chose Bronica ETRS/ETRSi because of cost, leaf shutter and flash sync speed, availability of decent lenses, modularity of film back and viewfinder, and availability of shooting accessories like speed grip and motor-winder. <br>

I looked at the Mamiya 645af, but decided that I never needed autofocus, and wanted (sometimes) a waist-level viewfinder. In addition, I had to have a leaf shutter. Having worked with focal-plane shutters before, I new that those would be too limiting for my style of outdoor portraits, where I use ordinary dumb monolights for fill. In addition, camera shake turns mountains into wavy lines, because what you think is 1/500th of a second is actually 1/30th of a second with a moving slit window, with all of the movement and shaky possibilities that 1/30th of a second brings. Any particular part of the frame is only exposed for 1/500th of a second, but the entire image takes 1/30th of a second to occur, and that means movements of the camera distort (but don't blur) your image in the same way a shutter speed of 1/30th ordinarily should.<br>

Leaf shutters for me were a deal maker or breaker. Focal plane shutter would immediately quash any camera purchase idea for me because they mean that for my purposes, the camera MUST be on a tripod at all times.<br>

Bronica was the logical choice because Hasselblad was more expensive by a large amount, and TLRs have parallax error making macro shots difficult to compose. The other SLR systems all had limitations that the Bronica did not have. Rollei was full-featured, but so overpriced that I'd have to have taken a second job.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Quality, both optical and mechanical, with the former being most important.</p>

<p>Thus... Hasselblad, without question.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>I think my approach was a bit different than most.<br>

<br />I bought a Metz flash on Ebay. It came with a module attached that turned out to be a 3952. When I googled it, it came up with this camera called "Mamiya 645AF"<br>

So I bought one. :-)</p>

<p>(No kidding).</p>

<p>Then I got an RB67, and then upgraded to an RZ67. </p>

<p>I like the low cost, good performance, SLR functionality, leaf shutter when I need it (on the RZ) or portability and autofocus on the 645 when I don't.<br>

<br />And I can shoot digital on both. </p>

[sfcole]

<p>6x6 is easiest to store in plastic pages. One roll--one page.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I worked for the company, and I couldn't beat the price.<g></p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Reliability, robustness and flexibility. I chose the Mamiya RB67as my rpime MF camera but I also have four Mamiya TLRs.</p>

[jason]

<p>I used "borrowed/use this!" medium format from ad. agencies.The best was a Mamiyaflec-C. Early TLR. Interchangeable lenses. Later i traded a 4x5 Linhof Color for a Bronica-C. The worst camera i ever owned!It could shred film better than the CIA. It could evict the film holder in middle of portrait session. It was evil. It was exchanged for a new Leica-M3.I still needed medium format, doing fashion, advertising and publicity.This was in the 60's. Used the Rollei 66 SLR. Lenses so sharp and contrasty. The camera felt awful in my hands.<br>

I went with Mamiya TLR, C3,C33,C330 and lenses to 180mm.Wonderful camera in the studio. Out on the road it needed the Hulk to carry it. When i closed studio in 70's it was a Pentax 67. I hated the noise, the rectangular image. I wish i'd bought the Hasselblad...but use of these was not happy. Finally traded the Pentax, in LA at Samys, for a Leica M6.anno 2000.<br>

The medium format i kept? The Rolleiflex Automat. Zeiss Tessar 75mm.A truly wonderful camera, light, reliable, had screen changed decades ago(no generations)! Easy to carry, no extras, no choice of other lenses,no decisions. You carry the system in the palm of your hand. A roll or two of film. I once took 18 months to expose a roll of 24.. The result was 23 could be enlarged to 20"x20"! Flash synch at any speed, though seldom used. Oh! I have a lens-hood, a yellow green filter.</p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>Rolleicord V (1955). It is a simple, beautiful piece of equipment that is always a pleasure to use. </p>

[greg_campbell1]

<p>I knew I wanted 6x6, if only to be 'different.' 6x6 is also toward the large end of standard MF formats. If I'm gonna lug this brick around, I want some big, pretty transparencies to show for my effort.</p>

<p>Didn't greatly care that a 'Blad may (or may not) have a somewhat sharper lens. The whole MF 'experience' involves far more than "My precious image quality." With a big-assed neg and a respectable lens, image quality will take care of itself. OTOH, something like a Holga is completely inadequate. :)</p>

<p>Wanted interchangeable lenses. Modular backs, etc. were not a big deal. Gave strong consideration to a Mammamia C220/330 kit, but was somewhat put off by the not-so-wide widest available FL (55mm) </p>

<p>Lusted after a Mamiya 6, but couldn't justify the $. :(</p>

<p>That got me to the Bronica and 'Blad. In the end I went with the relatively inexpensive Bronicasaurus SQ-Ai. The beast works well and I'm more than happy with it.</p>

<p>Looking forward, A 65mm GSW690-x might be the next toy. The camera looks a lot easier to handle and should (?) be much more 'transparent' when shooting. I've also got a bug to buy an old wooden, spool-fed folder, just for fun. I'll be sure to drag it out whenever visiting a popular place, if only to offset the Digital Hordes. :) </p>

<p>I wouldn't mind an older Blad or Bronica D (which is supposed to be a gorgeous camera.) If one drops into my lap.... :)</p>