Which 6x6 Camera - Bronica vs TLR vs Mamiya 6

[emily_rainsford]

I want to buy my first medium format camera. I have researched extensively but really need some specific input on my short listed

options.

 

I want to shoot 6x6 - I'm just drawn to it. If I want a rectangle, I can just use my 35mm cameras.

 

I've been shooting 35mm for about 6 months (DSLR before that). I am a hobbyist but a very passionate one. I mostly shoot my active 2

year old but I am very aware that the types of MF systems I'm looking at will require a slower shooting style and I want to try it.

 

I am limited by budget and the fact that I am small with pathetic girl arms so weight is a factor. I want to handhold - I'm not a tripod girl.

 

So I have narrowed down my options to:

 

* Bronica EC or Sq. I'm drawn to the EC for some reason. My main concern here is weight and the noise of the shutter.

 

* Yashicamat or Rollei 3.5 TLR. I have the opportunity to purchase a Rollei 3.5 Tessar New Standard for US$250 which I think is quite

tempting.

 

* I have had in my head forever that a Mamiya 6 would be my ideal camera (size, silence, aperture priority) but I've never used a

rangefinder before. So another option is to get a cheap 35mm RF like a yashica electro to see if a RF suits me then save up for a Mamiya

6.

 

I live in NZ and there is nowhere to actually touch and feel these cameras to get a feel for them.

 

Any input would be hugely appreciated!!

[lex_jenkins]

Personally I'd prefer a TLR like the Rolleiflex.

The waist level finder makes it easier to

handhold steadily without a tripod. And it can be

used at eye level when necessary, via the reflex

mirror finder, or for really quick use with the

non-optical peepsight, with zone focus and the

aperture stopped down for DOF.

 

But I struggle with rangefinder cameras, while

other folks find them easy to use. Start with an

inexpensive compact rangefinder and see if it

suits you.

[John Seaman]

<p>Emily, I love TLR's. I've got a New Standard but I wouldn't recommend it for the things you want it for. These cameras date back to 1939 and unless its been fitted with a replacement fresnel focussing screen you would find the plain ground glass viewfinder very dim and tricky to compose and focus with. Also the price seems rather steep.</p>

<p>Yashicamats have got better screens, the later ones probably the best, but they are prone to problems with the winding mechanism. Minolta Autocords are lovely cameras with excellent screens, provided the focusing lever hasn't snapped off as happens sometimes when the focusing mechanism becomes stiff with age. Otherwise consider a later Rolleiflex or a late model Rolleicord, the 5A and 5B have reasonably bright screens and good light baffles inside the body to reduce flare and improve contrast.</p>

<p>Some medium format SLR's are best used on a tripod because there's a degree of vibration when the mechanism goes off. I had a Bronica ETRS but was always happier with it on a tripod, or with studio flash. I don't have much experience with MF rangefinders.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That vibration thing again, so... ;-)<br>All cameras (no exceptions, under no circumstances) deliver better results when fixed on top of a steady tripod.<br>But when using any camera handheld anyway (there are times we just can't use a tripod), there is no reason to worry about camera induced vibrations. Our hands, even the steadiest, shake much more.<br><br>Re the choice between rangefinder, TLR and SLR, i'd say that unless there is a good reason not to, the thing to do is go for a SLR. You see through the taking lens (not so with rangefinder and TLR), and have a wide choice of lenses (limited with rangefinders, except for one model TLR, not available at all for TLRs) and other attachments that can be very useful.<br>So unless you have good reason to limit your photographic possibilities, the SLR is the camera of choice.<br>(And if anyone should doubt that - and i'm sure someone will - just have a look at the market, how few TLRS and rangefinders there are compared to SLRs. People generally agree, in great numbers.)

[jerome_ibanes]

<p>Without hesitation, go with the Rolleiflex.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Whilst to an extent, it relates to what sort of photography you want to do, and as you can already see, tlr, Rangefinders and slrs each have their adherents, it is pretty clear that a slr is the most flexible solution and will allow you to take a wider range of photographs competently than the others. <br>

I used to travel with a slr system ( a Bronica as it happens) and a Mamiya 7. I got the Mamiya because there were times when it was the better solution than a slr. But mostly I used the Bronica and viewed the rangefinder for when I really did need a lighter, less obtrusive solution, or a 67 format rather than square. If I had had to make do with one of them, the slr was the one I viewed as the main camera, and I'd have waved goodbye to the rangefinder without a moments hesitation.</p>

<p>All that said, if I wanted to take photographs of an active 2-y-o I'd use a dslr with image stabilisation every time, and against that all the others are a liability. The fact that you can see instantly what you've got, and whether you need to do it again is just such a huge advantage and the avoidance of any necessity to fiddle around with unsophisticated and probably handheld meters and fiddly manual focussing with small depth of field is just too tempting to choose anything else IMO. There are things for which I'd see a medium format film camera as having advantages. Photographing young kids that won't/can't keep still isn't one of these.</p>

 

[jerome_ibanes]

<p>TLR works perfectly with kids; or macro, or anything really.<br />I just carry the Rolleiflex with a strap, on one side, the kid on the other, the macro ring and 2 rolls in the pocket; no camera bag.<br /> <img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~jibanes/tmp/2.png" alt="" /><img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~jibanes/tmp/1.png" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>Emily - I think you have a tough choice, given your intended use, physical build, and the desire to not use a tripod. I owned several MF Bronica SLRs and 4-5 lenses for them. Really loved the cameras, but they were too big/heavy compared to the 35mm rangefinders I was used to. I found that the noticeably reduced DOF, at least for my work, didn't mesh well with low light hand held shots - a tripod was almost a necessity for the sharpness I wanted. My next venture was with TLRS - I had, in sequence, a Rolleiflex, Yashicamat 124, and Ricoh Diacord. The Rolleiflex turned out needing some pretty expensive repairs and I wasn't convinced it would be worth it. The Yashicamat was excellent, especially after I replaced the viewing screen with a brighter one from Rick Oleson, but the less expensive Ricoh won out because of the unique focus mechanism. I replaced the viewing screen with a brighter one with a split image one like found in rangefinder cameras. It is usable handheld, although I still prefer a tripod. Of course, the TLRs do require you to think of reversed images, which requires a small brain reset to get used to. I've never used a MF rangefinder camera so I won't comment on them. However, I grew up with rangefinders in 35mm and still prefer them over SLR/DSLRs except with long lenses, but I recognize that not everybody really likes rangefinders. I hope our comments help you narrow down your choice.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Left-right reversed viewfinders are indeed a matter of getting used to (or put 'right' by using a prism finder). What you, Jerome, haven't seen before the film was developed is how your kid and that piece of fruit was framed exactly. Both TLRs and rangefinders do not show the image as it is recorded on film. It shows an image as seen from close to the taking lens, but not through the taking lens. You can do close ups and macro, yes. But by no means as easily as with an SLR. (It's like hiking across Yellowstone with one leg broken and the other one bruised badly. It takes a lot of will power and can indeed be done. But it's so much easier with two healthy legs. ;-) ) SLRs make life a lot easier by letting you see the exact image that is coming home with you. That is why they were invented.<br>From the pre-selection you made, Emily, get the Bronica (SQ).

[chris_waller]

<p>From those options, I'd go for the Rollei. My experience is that Rolleis are very robust and reliable and will give you many years of service.</p>

[joseph_dickerson]

<p>For years I have heard people parroting that with an SLR...wysiwyg (what you see is what you get). Balderdash! (I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence).<br>

The very moment you <strong><em>need</em> </strong>to see your subject you're blind 'cause the mirror is up. Did the child move? Did the bride blink? Did the flash actually fire? Did the old lady feeding the pigeons in the park just give you the finger? You'll never know until the film is developed with an SLR (digital SLRs excepted of course). You'll know for sure with a TLR or rangefinder. Yes, macro is challenging, but there are work arounds if you need them.<br>

If you don't like the right/left reversal thing with TLRs, replace the waist level finder with a prism. This solution works with <strong><em>all</em></strong> Mamiya TLRs, C3/2 through C330/220. Also works with some Rolleis (E-2 and later if I remember correctly).<br>

I once tried a Mamiya rangefinder as a wedding camera, great for posed shots, drove me nuts trying to do candids with it. Although Mamiya 6/7 lenses are brutally sharp, any rangefinder is difficult to use with moving subjects. Mamiya TLR lenses, especially the later ones, are also very good, but remember they're all at least 15-20 years old, I'm not sure the exact year the Mamiya TLRs were discontinued. But, more importantly, they were made for a long time, so there are a lot of them available, just get the latest lenses you can afford.<br>

As mentioned previously, the best camera for a hyper anything-year-old is a digital SLR with a good zoom lens, but for me at least, the second best choice is a Mamiya TLR, with a prism.<br>

One last point, old Rolleis, like old Leicas, have a lot of collector appeal. This tends to drive the prices for <em><strong>user</strong></em> cameras artifically high. Mamiyas, not so much. The prices have stayed pretty reasonable.<br>

Good hunting for the right camera for you, and remember, photographing any two-year-old with <strong><em>any</em></strong> camera is challenging. So plan on shooting lots!<br>

JD</p>

 

[charles_wass]

<p>The previous posts have covered the pros and cons of the various camera types well, but I suspect that, however helpful they tried to be, they will not in themselves enable you to make the right decision. The three types handle so differently that there is a risk of your making a choice you may later regret unless you can try all three and compare them. Is there really no way of handling examples? If you ask around or advertize locally you may even find someone who has a neglected camera they would be ready to sell and which you could try without obligation, though I acknowledge that few people except professionals used MF.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Buy a Yashica, and save the extra money towards the Hasselblad that you know you really want. :-)</p>

[jerome_ibanes]

<p>I never had any picture our of frame with my Rolleiflex; as it has parallax compensation (even for macro), I never use a tripod either; sometimes I even do long exposures, I just put it on the ground and use a cord.</p>

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>Mamiya 6. This is one of the best cameras ever made, IMHO. But they can be fragile and some problems can't be repaired for lack of parts. So I would have to suggest a Rollei TLR. Mamiya TLRs are good but rather heavy. </p>

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>Mamiya 6. This is one of the best cameras ever made, IMHO. But they can be fragile and some problems can't be repaired for lack of parts. So I would have to suggest a Rollei TLR. Mamiya TLRs are good but rather heavy. </p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>The OP is in New Zealand where the suppply of cameras might not be so good. If she buys the wrong camera it could be relatively difficult to sell it. Repairs would be even more problematic than here in Australia. My Rolleiflex GX has just had a trip to Germany.</p>

<p>Having young children inspired me to take lots of photos. I have used 35mm SLR and rangefinder, and 120 SLR (Rolleiflex SL66) and rangefinder (Mamiya 6). I enjoy looking at the world through a big square viewfinder, but I find myself printing rectangular most of the time anyway. At the end of the day I found my best prints came from 35mm (SLR and rangefinder, all manual focus) because of the better depth of field and the general ease of use. Also, modern 400 speed films are fantastic, and it's great to be able to use f/1.4 for indoor shots.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>Most of my medium format rangefinder experience was with Koni-Omegas. These are heavry and quirky cameras but can deliver excellent results if they are in good condition and used properly. I have a number of 6X6 TLRs which I still use sometimes. Most of my medium format cameras now are SLRs. They have fallen so much in price and are so much more versatile than other medium format cameras, I mostly use them when shooting 120/220 film. I agree that the Rolleiflex you are talking about would not be very practical. The Bronica EC/ECTL models are old, very heavy and difficult to get repaired. A Mamiya 6 in good condition is certainly capable of good results but you will not get very close with it and extra lenses can be very expensive. In the 6X6 SLR format I have four Bronica SQ-As and an SQ-AM. The original SQ is even older and does not have all of the features. The later SQ-Ai offers TTL flash capability but has more complicated electronics. With an waist level finder the SQ-A will give you the same reversed image as a TLR with a waist level finder. The difference is that you can get a number of different prism finders and that will let you see an unreversed image. With extension tubes you can get closer than with any rangefinder. Each lens has its own electronically controlled leaf shutter and synchs with flash at any speed. The 80/2.8 S and PS lenses are both excellent. A standard kit would be a 50/3.5, an 80/2.8 and a 150/3.5 S or f/4 PS. The PS lenses are the later ones. You can cover a lot of ground with these three lenses. The camera has interchangeable backs so you can change film in mid roll by changing backs. An SQ-A which has not been used constantly by a professional photographer can be reliable and give good results. Be sure to get a Speed Grip if you get an SQ-A or any of the SQ cameras (except the SQ-AM, which has a built-in motor). It makes holding the camera and winding the film much more comfortable. There are many plain (no meter) prism finders around and they sell for very little. Most of these cameras were used indoors for event photography and with flash. A meter prism just wasn't needed. Still, they are available if you want one. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A couple of points:<br><br>The moment the shutter is open is short. Do we miss what is happening when clicking the shutter of an SLR? Did the child move and come to a sudden stop in 30 ms? I think not. How fast is that old lady in the park anyway? And from everything you see through your rangefinder, can you identify the event that occured during exactly those 30 ms? I think not again.<br><br>Parallax compensation does not exist, Jerome. You can have a moving frame line that shows where the image ends. But parallax is about perspective. You were not seeing that fruit through the viewing lens the way it was seen through the taking lens. In the close up range the difference in position of both makes for two rather different images. In the macro range the viewing lens will not even be looking at the subject that fills the field of view of the taking lens.

[owen_omeara]

<p>I would also recommend the Hasselblad 500 CM.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[tom_christiansen]

<p>+1 for Hasselblad 501CM. Of the cameras I've had, I actually miss the Hasselblad at times. There's just something about composing through a waist-level finder on a 6x6 slab of ground glass that can't be replaced by more modern cameras.</p>

<p>~Tom</p>

[emily_rainsford]

Thank you so much everyone for the many, well thought out responses! I wasn't sure what to expect from this forum but I

really appreciate all the time and effort you have all taken to respond, thank you!

 

I do realise that if I want to capture my monkey at her most active and really don't want to miss a shot, then my digital and

35mm SLRs are the best tool for the job. I have both film and digital Canon EOS systems which both serve that purpose

well. I don't expect a medium format camera/system to replace this function. I hope to be able to nab a shot of her in her

quieter moments, and also expand my subject matter - sometimes it is nice to feel like I'm something other than just

"mum" if that makes sense.

 

But certainly handholding is important to me and I'm starting to think that rules out the Bronica.

 

The shooting distance of the M6 is the one big concern to me as I am kind of drawn to the idea of "macro" shooting (not

true macro really, just closer focusing) which is certainly not an option with the M6 whereas I know the Rolleinars are an

option for the Rollei. On the other hand, I can always get a macro lens for my 35mm if I really feel the urge, can't I....

 

The previous poster is correct in saying that my living in NewZealand affects things. I live in a smallish town and anyway

there is not a big film presence in this country that I can find. I certainly am not able to try before I buy, as I will most likely

be purchasing from overseas and I don't know any other film shooters here.

 

I guess my biggest question is which focusing method will frustrate me less - the WLF or the RF. I have a Canon AE-1P

and I find having to judge with my eyes alone whether focus is correct to be quite tricky although I do manage to get a fair

amount of keepers on that camera, even the action shots. The TLR kind of just looks "fun" because it is so different... On

the other hand I wonder if I would be more likely to carry the M6 along with me on a day trip...

 

I'm kind of just thinking out loud here ha!

[emily_rainsford]

I have actually thought about the Hasselblad but have the same concern as the Bronicas - size and weight

[jerome_ibanes]

<p>I have rented a hasselblad, a 503cw more precisely; as I was trying to figure out if such camera would be for me, as it's quite an investment (in lenses mostly).<br>

Bottomline, I didn't like it outdoors (or street, anniversaries, indoors), although it's fine (and great) in the studio; with proper light, patience and (very) understanding subject.Yes I know this camera was used by Ansel at some point but... I'm not Ansel, never will be (sigh.) Try to see if you can rent one before you buy, it's really different, you will either love or hate it.</p>

[emily_rainsford]

I should also add - I tend to pick a favourite lens - usually a wide-ish normal, 35-50mm 35mm equivalent - and it lives on

my camera. I'm not one for pfaffing around changing lenses. So the amount of lenses available for a system is not an

issue to me at all and the fixed lens of the TLRs doesn't worry me. My 35mm cameras both have 50mm primes on them

and I actually sometimes wish they were a titch wider.