Mamiya vs Pentax vs Bronica

[fernando_estrella]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I'm new to this site but I like what I see. I'm a freelance photographer and I've been shooting for over 10 years now.<br>

I'm ready to step up my game in the MF world. I started using a Yashicamat 124 and loved it. I'm ready to go up to either an SLR or rangefinder. I wanted to know if anyone could comment on the quality of Mamiya, Pentax, and Bronica. I hear mixed reviews and am not sure what to go with. I shoot landscapes as well as portraits and I don't mind buying used. I've heard that Mamiya's image quality is second only to Hasselblad but their housing construction is of poor quality. Comments like this have pushed me towards Pentax and maybe even Bronica. I guess to make it simpler I'll list my questions in bullet form:<br>

-Are Mamiyas really excellent image cameras with cheaply constructed housings?<br>

-If so, would it be better to go with a Pentax or Bronica?<br>

-I've also considered some of the used Hassies-any recommendations on which one?<br>

Also, I'm open to either the 645 or 6x7, although I've heard 645 is the way to go.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Fernando</p>

[william_markey]

<p>If you do landscape, I'd stick with the 645 size...the 6X7 Mamiyas (I have both the RB and RZ set ups) are too large and heavy to carry for long...and your camera case would have to be HUGE if you have all the lenses I do. I use my Mamiya 645 Super if I know I'm going to be far from the car.</p>

<p>Mamiya construction is very durable...don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Sure, the 645s are made of plastic...but so are most cameras. And I've NEVER seen OR heard of anyone "breaking" a Mamiya camera because it was of "poor quality". They are WELL built and do a fantastic job.</p>

<p>I've never used a Pentax but the only difference there is that you cannot switch out film backs like you can on the Mamiyas. I have shot with my friend's Bronica ETRS (645 format) and the advantage there is that you can flash sync at all shutter speeds (up to 1/500)...not so on the Mamiya 645s unless you use their leaf-shutter lenses. The Mamiya lenses focus smoother and faster than the Bronica.</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>First off, you need to decide whether you're going to choose a SLR or a Rangefinder.<br /> Most any camera will work well for landscapes, but Rangefinders are usually not the first choice for portraits.<br /> There are probably a greater percentage of 645's that normally operate in portrait orientation, so tilting the camera sideways for landscapes can be a bit tricky, especially when using the WLF.<br>

That's one of the advantages of the Mamiya RB/RZ cameras...rotating backs. <br /> Of course, shooting a square, 6 X 6 Bronica or Hasselblad, this isn't an issue...just like your Yashica.<br /> I can't speak to the build quality of Mamiya Rangefinders (don't own one), but the build quality of the RZ is excellent.<br /> Don't worry about lens quality. MF demands quality lenses, so...they're all basically really good to excellent.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>I went through a similar excercise when I wanted to step up from a Yashica. You need to form your own opinion about things like image quality, but my own findings were:</p>

<p>Mamiya: Well regarded and often recommended. But I didn't like the image quality I saw in sample pictures. I found the images sharp but with harsh out-of-focus areas. I wasn't impressed with the body style, it didn't feel comfortable to me.</p>

<p>Pentax: The first generation 645 had a poor user interface (push button, like the Pentax Super Program.) The later models (N and NII) have a great interface, and are really comfortable, and sturdy. I liked the image quality of the Pentax lenses, and the SMC coating is renowned as one of the best. I disliked the slow flash sync speed, and the inability to change the finder.</p>

<p>Bronica: I liked the modularity, including multiple finders. I liked that flash will sync at every speed (i.e. up to 1/500.) I liked having electronic shutter speed control, and leaf shutters in every lens. I liked the image quality from the lenses. The biggest drawback: no option for autofocus.</p>

<p>In the end I went with the Bronica, and am very happy. They were popular and plentiful, so I was able to build a very complete kit for very little money.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I've owned Hasselblad in the past, and currently shoot with a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II setup (both with film and medium format digital back).</p>

<p>I find the RZ system to be quite well built and rugged, no concerns there at all. It's not a small or light camera but I don't have a problem fitting a 5 lens kit into a backpack with a tripod. I shot 4x5 for a long while too, so I guess it's just a question of perspective. :-)</p>

<p>As far as the Mamiya glass goes, I find it to be absolutely phenomenal - some of the best glass that I've shot across any format. Extremely sharp, and I quite like the rendition.</p>

<p>Here's a couple snapshots of my son taken with the RZ and Aptus 22.</p>

<p>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/L_000675-Edit-1.jpg<br /> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/L_000362-2-Edit.jpg<br>

<br /> and a 100% crop, wide open from the 150mm f/3.5 lens<br>

<br /> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/L_000362-2-Crop.jpg</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>Sure, the 645s are made of plastic...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only true of the Super, Pro, ProTL and E. The earlier M645 bodies were all metal and practically bomb-proof. If you want durability, forget Mamiya's Super and 645E versions. The Pro and Pro TL are a little better, but the magazine back of all the later 645 Mamiyas is a weak design prone to cracking, warping and generally becoming a sloppy fit to the body. Whereas an old metal 1000s in good condition should serve you well for many years to come.</p>

<p>Current Mamiya 645 prices mean that this system probably offers the best value for money, and lenses for it are plentiful and affordable.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Don't hesitate to go with any of those brands. They are all very respectable, and once you dial in what kind of system you want, all will give you impressive results. I shoot a Mamiya, just because the week I was looking, that's what I stumbled across at a sale. Pentax 645 has the advantage of autofocus if you're willing to pay, and if you're ready, there is a 645 Digital that takes wonderful photos.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>If your mix is mostly landscapes, I would go for the Pentax 67. It is primarily a field camera. The newer glass for this system is really great. If you do more portraits, go with a Mamiya RB or RZ. </p>

[donbright]

<p>For landscapes, the Pentax 6711 is lighter than all of the above, and the SMC Pentax 67 lenses are superb. The Pentax 6711 weighs in at 2.7 lbs, the same as a new Nikon D-4. So for Medium format, 2.7 lbs is acceptable, to say the least for field work. Image quality from these lenses rival anything from your list. </p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>For best image quality go with the M7--best MF lenses ever made and the 67 format is noticeability superior to 6x6 or 645. It's also the best for portability, as it's lightweight and the lenses are small in comparison to the Pentax 67. But being a rangefinder it's not very flexible.</p>

<p>For best combination of flexibility and portability go with the Pentax 645 as it's the smallest and lightest (and fastest to operate) of all MF slrs.</p>

<p>For most versital go with the RB/RZ, but it's also the bulkiest--great studio camera, though.</p>

<p> The Pentax 67 lenses are very heavy and bulky, so if you do a lot of backpacking I would avoid it. Also the wide angle lenses have a lot of CA (though that's removable to a great extent in PS). </p>

<p>Haven't shot with Bronica but some of the images I've seen from the square look very nice.</p>

<p>A friend of mine owns a lot of the earlier glass from the Mamiya 645 and the image quality is not that good, but the later glass may be better.</p>

<p>You don't mention budget but if price is important to you I would also recommend the Koni-Omega 67. Excellent lenses for very little money with interchangable backs. But it is a rangefinder and not good for portrait work.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I have a friend who uses a Mamiya 7 and the optics are excellent. I use a Mamiya RB67 of some vintage but it still delivers excellent results via my 90mm and 180mm lenses. I also use Mamiya TLRs - C3, C220 and C330, all of which I love dearly.</p>

[john_cooper9]

<p>I have had good results for landscapes using the 6X7 Bronica GS-1. My favorite lens is the 65mm. The 110mm macro is very good. The 50mm is a bit too wide for me, equivalent to 24mm on 135.</p>

<p>My favored outfit is GS-1 body with speed grip with 2/3 backs and 65 110 200 lenses. I have extension tubes for the macro and a 1.4 tele-extender.</p>

<p>Bronica used prices are quite low these days.</p>

[predrag_vranic]

<p>I've shot with M645 1000s and got Bronica SQ-A with somewhere along the way.. After a while I traded my M645 stuff for another SQ-A and more lenses, ended with 7 Zenzanon lenses, love 'em all. In the meantime I took one RB67 along with 50mm and 90m lenses and shot 10-20 rolls in 2 months period.<br>

I've toyed a bit few 500CMs and various TLRs. Never liked the ergonomics much.</p>

<p>I loved the 6x7 format, very challenging but very rewarding for composition. RBs really make you slow down. Generally speaking, Sekors give more overall contrast over the image while Zenzanons deal a bit better with micro-contrast. 6x6 format is great and is closest to what human eyes perceive, IMO.<br>

With MF SLRs - it's all great glass, no matter the brand. All of those lenses were built to meet high demands of professionals, keep that in mind.</p>

<p>I hated 6x4.5 format, very dull and simple thus the size of negatives/slides is not that much rewarding comparing to other 2 formats, especially 6x7.<br>

RBs have maybe just a tad better build quality but Bronica bodies definitely have more intuitive and smarter camera functions, thus coupled metering or AE prisms are BIG plus, for me.</p>

<p>Never tried Pentax cameras though I still occasionally get P67 GAS, but if I ever spread for another MF camera it'd probably be RZ67 for more versatility options.</p>

[djolk]

<p>I love my Bronica SQ-A. The only downside is you have to hit a couple switches to free shutter and turn the meter on. They're a lot of camera for what you pay for them these days.</p>

[predrag_vranic]

<p>Oh yeah, I forgot, SQ-A backs can be really troublesome!</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>These comments are about cameras I have owned and used. What I found going through MF cameras that unlike 35mm, the form factors of these cameras are wildly different, and that means personal ergonomics becomes very important. "How does it feel in the hand?" became a big issue for me. Cameras that were awkward for me, were not fun, no matter how good the pix were. Of course, that aspect is 100% personal. What is bad for my hands might be great for others, and so on. </p>

<ol>

<li>Bronica SQ-A. I loved the modularity of the design. I hated loading film in these backs. Don't know why, but I always had a hard time. The camera felt awkward to me. I even tried a pistol grip. I wanted to love this thing, but in the end, divorce came!</li>

<li>Ikonta 533/16 and other Zeiss Folders. I like using these cameras. I like that they fold up, and I love the precision way they work. The RF dial is fantastic. The photographs are marvelous. What I didn't like was the repair bills. More than the cost of the camera. I have a very sentimental feeling to the 533/16 honey, but I can't afford to keep you in the lifestyle you love! Divorce came.</li>

<li>Yashica MAT124 G. These are very nice cameras and using a TLR is a unique way of using a camera. Once you get accustomed to it, it feels rather natural and good. They take great pictures. I have one problem with all of them - - getting good focus. Whatever the reason, I simply have trouble getting a perfect focus with a waist-level finder. I think the square, waist level point of view is really cool for street photography too. I still have this slightly difficult to use baby, and we go play from time to time. </li>

<li>Mamiya 7. WOW! I was just floored when I developed my first roll. This camera takes the best pictures of any that I own. But it is a bit heavy with the 80mm lens. I got the new "sling" strap for mine, and it has made handling it better. In spite of size, this camera feels absolutely great in the hand, and I have no issue with the weight. I do love this camera but for the price of the lenses which is in a word "astronomical." I am lusting for a 43mm, but $1300 seems more than I want to pay. She's an expensive one to keep! I like rangefinders. I find them easy to focus, and I dig the quiet shutter. The meter is very simple and "mostly" effective. But of course if you get into difficult light, don't trust it. I think someone referred to these as "clown cameras" owing to their size. Yes, people take notice and ask about it all the time. A keeper.</li>

<li>Fuji GA645Wi. I wrote a review on this a week or so ago. Love it. My current darling camera. Take it everywhere. And the film loading is OUT OF THIS WORLD great. Best of any 120 camera I have had. </li>

</ol>

<p>Enjoy which ever you choose!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You seem to be asking which of these cameras is the best. The truth is that all three of these brands, and all of the models within each brand, are able to produce wonderful pictures, to the point that you're going to find it hard to look at prints and tell what came from what camera. Equally its likely that whatever you buy will be used and maybe substantially used. At that point there's going to be more difference in the propensities to break between (say) one Mamiya and the next than there is between (say) Mamiya and Bronica. Its more important to buy a good example of whatever camera you buy than to obtain what you think is the most reliable brand. From a camera quality perspective its much more important to buy from a reliable source and get a warranty than to buy what you think might be the most reliable brand.</p>

<p>In any case there are decisions you need to make for yourself first that will narrow your choice and make the decision easier. What size and shape do you want your images to be? Do you see yourself taking square pictures ( if not, don't buy a SQ camera and if you do then buy one.) If you want to take rectangular pictures, do you feel more comfortable with the elegant 67 format or the more angular, 35mm like 645? What size prints do you want to make? If you don't intend to make large prints than your choice doesn't matter much. If you want to push the envelope on print size then you'll be better off with the 67. How much walking /carrying do you do , and in conjunction, do you intend to build a full system in your chosen brand or just stick with a body and one lens? Carrying a 67 slr with accessories and a few lenses all day long is no mean feat if you're the sort of person who feels every pound. </p>

<p>Finally a few people have mentioned rangefinders because the image quality is good. Well that's true to a point- rangefinders are very good at what they can do, but they are inherently less flexible than slrs too. If your photography demands close focusing , long lenses, close control of depth of field, and you rely a lot on graduated ND filters for exposure control, then you're going to find a rangefinder kind of limiting. Personally I found I needed both an slr and a rangefinder for my work.</p>

<p>So in summary I think you're asking the wrong question right now and I frankly don't think that lots of people telling you that Pentax (or Mamiya, or Bronica) are great is not what you need. Not least because they're not you and will rate or dislike different factors. For example one respondent said he had trouble with loading Bronicas.; I used Bronicas professionally for ten years or more and found it really easy and I can recall only one mistake. So people's experiences vary. You need to work out for yourself what sort of pictures you want to make , and what format (66, 645,67 or whatever ; slr or rangefinder) you need and then ask a much narrower question again. </p>

[fernando_estrella]

<p>WOW-Thank you all for your valuable input! I find your knowledge and varied experience with these cameras very useful because at this point I do a little bit of everything and am still a rookie when it comes to MF photography. Looks like I have a lot of homework to do! On a side note, I believe only one or two of you mentioned working with a Hasselblad. Is this because they don't get used that often in MF work? Is it the price that makes them less desirable as opposed to the other brands? Thanks again to all of you!!</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Check out the Pentax Photo Gallery. Click on "Camera and Lenses". Scroll to a MF camera body: 67II, 67, 6x7, 645N, 645. Choose a lens for the camera.</p>

<p>Here is a start: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/jameskay#/carousel</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>This is a Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge question. All three are very capable of professional images. The handling is different between them, and the operating quirks will be different too. Stopped down a few stops, all 3 lens brands have reputations for being extremely sharp and contrasty.</p>

<p>The Pentax and Mamiya are both focal plane shutters, the Bronica's shutter is a leaf. if you never do flash work, this will never matter. If flash of moving subjects is your thing, go with the Bronica.</p>

<p>My vote would be for an EX grade original Mamiya 645.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>If you like 2 1/4 square, do you want to stay with it or go a bit bigger, or a bit smaller with your negatives?<br>

I would not want to go smaller. 6x7 is the next size up and would work well. Otherwise, stay with the same size negatives.<br>

On Hasselblad, older bodies and lenses are available for low prices these days. They work and are a decent option.<br>

If you can, get some hands on time with the bodies you are thinking of. That will tell you more than we can. All can produce fine work so what is more comfortable to you should help you decide.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard that Mamiya's image quality is second only to Hasselblad but their housing construction is of poor quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure I'd agree with either of those statements!</p>

<p>I have noticed a strong correlation between lens design generation and performance, especially among the Japanese MF manufacturers. Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax and Fuji really upped their lens game from about the mid-1980s onwards. I find that those who are dismissive of say, M645 or RB67 or Pentax 67 glass, are typically talking about their experiences with some of the 1970s designs. That is not to say that some of the older designs are not also stellar: the Mamiya 24mm ULD fisheye has never been surpassed in MF, to take one example, and used samples still command a 4-digit dollar price to this day, because it's just so damn good even on the 60 and 80 MP digital backs.</p>

<p>So the #1 tip I could give you now is to be very wary of sweeping statements regarding the image/lens quality of entire systems. In my experience, and reading that of all sorts of MF users, every system has variation - some lenses are stellar, some are fine, and some are below the level of equivalent lenses in other systems. This is particularly noticeable if you use the lenses at wide apertures. The Mamiya 7 probably contradicts my statement (<em>every</em> lens appears to be stellar!) but this was a camera designed quite recently around a few, brand new lenses with a very conservative range of focal lengths and max apertures. It had no "legacy" glass to drag its GPA down, and by putting the optics first and foremost, it could be argued that the body was compromised (it <em>had</em> to be a rangefinder in order to accomodate those optically-true wideangles). </p>

<p>My 2nd tip is to study the systems closely, and make sure that the one you choose offers everything you want in terms of accessories and range of lenses. Some systems stick to the core items (Mamiya 7 and Bronica GS1 for example) while others provide nearly everything under the sun (Hasselblad and Mamiya 645 for example). Since you're asking about the 645 SLRs, Mamiya leads the way here, followed by Bronica, Pentax, and finally Contax.</p>

<p>Finally, addressing issues of build quality - again, there is no monolithic answer for most marques because they span a long range in time. I've found that my 1st-generation M645 1000s bodies are very sturdy (all metal), but like anything else, they can develop minor age-related issues. I can't speak for the "plastic" 2nd-generation bodies (Super/Pro/ProTL) but I know that under the plastic there was a metal chassis. I have one of the 3rd-generation bodies (AF/AFD/DF series - it's funny that no-one has mentioned these yet!), and it has a tough but light magnesium chassis under the inevitable plastic exterior. I use it with both film and digital backs and there's certainly no problem with the build of the back interface. Even though it has autofocus, I mainly use it with the manual focus M645 lenses - the AF system gives focus confirmation with all lenses, which is a real boon. Features like that are only available in a minority of MF cameras, which is another thing to think about as you make your decision.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>I have to agree with Ray concerning the optics between Bronica, Mamiya and Pentax. The differences in optical performance between the most recent lenses coming out of these three companies is not enough to base your buying decision. There have been huge improvements in lens designs in medium format since 1970, with Pentax 6x7 being a prime example. Their Super-Takumar lenses, for the most part were of average performance but Pentax and Japan in general had been influenced by Dr. Deming's "Continual Process Improvement" mindset and the race for quality was on. After the Super-Takumar era, Pentax went with a 7 layer anti reflection coating and eventually started to use aspherical lens surfaces and newer glass types not available in 1969,when the P6x7 was launched. </p>

<p>Your decision should be based on how you intend to use the system, availability of the right focal lengths required by you and affordability to you.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Ray & Steve, I say, 'very good' to the points, because I couldn't have said it better. I think you have encapsulated these issues of Medium format to a sharp point, and I get the impression thats just a tip of the iceberg of what you know. Thanks!</p>

[predrag_vranic]

<p>I also forgot to mention Pentacon Six TL and it's Carl Zeiss Jena legacy lenses which can be mounted on various bodies such as Kiev/Arax 88 CM and Kiev 6/60.<br /> I still have 3 P6 bodies and 6 lenses.. well, those lenses are amazing from f/5.6 to f/11, unbelievable really, but each one those 3 P6 bodies have some fault and strobes won't sync at any speed. I haven't tried any other body platforms but heard good things about Arax. Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 itself is worth the dable with faulty bodies, IMO.</p>

<p>I'm not shooting anymore with these lenses but my lady still does and even though I offered her to use my back-up SQ-A she still prefers these archaic MF SLRs so it's definitely worth checking. You can mount these lenses on Pentax and Mamiya 645 via adapter.</p>