Bronica RF645 versus Mamiya 7

[bob_k]

I am about to get into MF and was considering purchasing a Mamiya 7

(or 7II) when I read a couple threads here about the Bronica RF645.

Now I'm wondering if I should wait and buy one of those instead.

 

Can someone please summarize the advantages (and disadvantages) of

the Bronica RF645 compared to the Mamiya 7. Is it just size and

weight? If so, how much smaller and lighter will it be? How will

they compare as far as accessories, cost of operation and image

quality?

 

I will be using this MF system mainly for outdoors photography and

hope to be able to hike and climb with it.

 

Seattle, Washington

[dermot_conlan1]

It will be difficult to give comparisons as the Bronica is not yet readily available. Also you are trying to compare a 6x4.5 to a 6x7, it would make more sense to compare the RF645 with say the Fuji 645zi after it's been around for six or seven mnonths and there's some user reports available.

 

You should really get to a pro store and rent the M7 or M711 for a weekend, rangefinders are not for everybody. If you've been raised on SLR's it can be difficult to get used to the rangefinder. Some take to it and simply love it. Others (like me) go through a rough period and either get to like using one or get rid of it, hence the ammount of M7's and Fuji's available used.

 

I have tried both the M7 and Fuji's 69 rangefinders but found they did not work for me. If you are shooting a lot of landscape's or close-ups with slide film you will be frustrated by the difficulty in using graduated and polarizing filters. If on the other hand you shoot street scenes or a lot of b+w or are getting this camera to supplement an already exhisting mf system it may be a new lease on life.

Rent before buying, medium format is expensive and once you get into a system it can be tough on the old card to change. A $75-100 rental fee can sometimes be deducted from the camera if you end up buying.

My advice is to wait on some hard evidence on the Bronica, try to get your hands on the Fuji and figure out first which size in medium format is for you 645 or 67.

[paul roark]

The Bronica is interesting sounding, but as noted above, it's a little early to judge.

 

I just wanted to add one other perspective. I moved from reflex to rangefinder (the Zi) and found that the polarizer "problem" isn't much of a problem. I use that filter regularly -- on a tripod -- and simply have a second cheap/old one that I've turned into a viewing filter. It's easy to coordinate/calibrate two polarizers.

[david_henderson]

Like everyone else, I haven't seen a Bronica rangefinder yet, but

 

1. The first thing you need to do is to decide between a 67 image and a 645 image. It's like chalk and cheese.

 

2. Given that the Mamiya 7 lenses are superb, it is inconceivable to my mind that the smaller image size that the Bronica offers will provide better quality images. As a Bronica SQAi owner I'd expect their quality to be good, but the Mamiya's extra image size is likely to mean that it is superior, and whilst the M7 isn't for everyone I think there would be a unanimous perception of its image quality amongst users.

 

3. I wouldn't worry about size or weight. The Mamiya feels as light as most 35mm outfits and lighter than some. If you can't walk with an M7 then you couldn't walk with anything. The tripod- if you use one - will be more difficult to carry than the camera. There just can't be a big weight difference because the Mamiya is light. and of course you can't get the bulky long and zoom lenses that make up most of the weight of most serious 35mm user's outfits. My M7 with two lenses, viewfinders , hoods, filters and other bits & pieces weighs 5.5 pounds- including the bag.

 

4. Assuming your camera gets plenty of use, the fact that you get 10 shots from a 120 roll on the Mamiya and presumably 16 from the Bronica will be the biggest difference in operating cost unless you're unlucky with reliability which could happen with either brand.

 

5. A previous poster indicates problems with the use of grads on rangefinders and he's right. Equally you can't see depth of field, have to use auxillary viewfinders for all but the "standard" lens range; and there's nothing in the auxillary viewfinder to tell you that you're in focus. Using a rangefinder is not the same as using a SLR and there are downsides, but it's what you have to pay for the size/weight; the ability to handhold in my case down to 1/15; and the sort of sharpness and colour rendition that many medium format SLR owners would die for.

 

6. In the UK - where both brands are considerably less expensive than in USA by the way - The Bronica body is more expensive than the M7 and the lenses are cheaper. With a body and 2 lenses the cost is likely to be similar.

[paul_wilson2]

Consider also a Mamiya 6 or 6mf. With the collapsible lens mount, it may well be smaller than the Bronica and the lenses are excellent. The 6 also has the advantage of not having to worry about horizontal or vertical. I personally find rangefinders somewhat clumsy to use for vertical compositions (and I assume the Bronica would be a bit clumsy for horizontal). With the 6 you'll also probably save a lot of money.

 

I'm sure the Bronica is a very good camera but for me it doesn't seem to have any huge advantage over the Mamiya's and it has one big disadvantage (neg size).

[jeff_drew4]

"Mainly for outdoors photography . . . to hike and climb with it." I use a Fuji GW670III and offer these opinions: I like RFs and have several, am selling SLRs; Fuji GW series has 2 shutter buttons, 1 each vertical & horizontal; any 6x7cm camera is a lot to hike or climb with especially adding lenses and gadgets. The 6x7cm or 6x9cm formats are great, but 6x4.5cm is not bad either and you get a smaller package to haul around. Have you thought about Pentax 645N? Smallish AF - great reviews, or a Fuji GA645Zi definitely a compromise in accessories, but smaller yet and sharp lens!

[brian walsh]

I take a Mamiya 7 on rock climbing routes where I'm unlikely to fall in a way that would damage the camera, but I haven't done any snow or ice routes with it. I think it's well worth the effort of carrying the camera. <A HREF="http://home.rmi.net/~csoles/Clydeland/Photo%20Gallery/photogallery.htm">Clyde Soles</A> took his Mamiya 6 up Gasherbrum II and El Capitan. <P>

 

If you are at all like me (e.g., a carbon-based life form), you probably aren't going to make too many wall size murals. I've had prints made to 16x20 from a cropped transparency (so it was like enlarging to 20x24"), and I doubt I'd go much larger -- although I've been quite pleased by the results. At that size, either system will likely deliver very good results, with -- perhaps -- an edge to the Mamiya.<P>

 

There are major differences in the lens selections. If the Bronica is successful, you might expect additional lenses down the line, but Mamiya now have two extraordinary wide angle lenses that aren't matched by the Bronica RF system: the 43mm f/4.5 and the 50mm f/4.5. The ultrawide angle is extremely good. That said, I prefer the 50mm lens, which is a wonderful lens, and my favorite among the four system lenses I now own. I generally take the 50+80mm combination climbing.<P>

 

David Henderson pointed out an important difference between the systems in terms of operating costs, but the frames per load issue may be significant to you in another way, as well. I can easily change film when I'm hanging around on sun-warmed Sierra Granite, but you might not welcome the break with snow streaming by you horizontally in the Cascades. You can deal with it by using 220 in the Mamiya, but the Bronica could still have the edge when loaded with the same film.

[lgoodwin]

I own a M7, and for me it is an ideal camera. I also own a Fuji Folder 645 which I use for travel. To my mind, one the most important distinctions between these cameras will be the negative size. A 645 negative is roughly 2/3 the size of a 6x7 negative. That translates into a difference in enlargeability that is readily apparent to me, particularly at 16x20. If lack of grain and high image sharpness is important to you (as it is to me), you should definitely go with the larger negative.

[pete_su]

FWIW, I'll make another plug for the Mamiya 6.

 

I just got one of these, and it's great. The best thing is not having

to worry about verticals.

[joseph_albert]

I like the Mamiya 6 alot, but I would be concerned about investing a fair bit a money in an electronic camera that has been discontinued by the manufacturer-- how long with they supply replacement circuit boards?

<p>

back to the original question, I think the advantages and disadvantages of a 6x7 rangefinder compared to a 645 one are as follows:

<p>

645 -- should be lighter weight, cheaper, better able to support telephoto work.

<p>

6x7 -- best overall quality. it is easier to make lenses with smaller coverage, so people often assume that lenses for 645 are going to be sharper than lenses for 6x7. however, with the mamiya 7 it appears the lenses are as sharp as those for 6x6 and 645, though this is by reputation, I haven't done any tests myself. but even if this is true, keep in mind that 645 is 3/4 as large as 6x7, so the loss in quality is fairly minimal. if you enlarge a 645 negative by 4x and a 6x7 negative by 3x you get roughly the same size prints.

<p>

unless you plan to print to 20x24 alot, I would consider weight, price, and subjective feel for how the cameras handle and the better opportunity for telephoto work with 645 before I'd worry about quality differences. both cameras should make beautiful 16x20's if you have a well executed negative or transparency.

[philip_partridge]

The Bronica is newly released and may have teething problems, but it's certainly good to see another entrant into the MF rangefinder market. Bronica picked three good focal length lenses to introduce the system, and 645 is a big step up in image quality over 35. For many users, 67 may be overkill.

Having said that, all the MF rangefinders from Fuji and Mamiya are light enough at under three pounds, and all are compact and well-shaped for stowing. All are great for hiking and general travel.

If money is an issue (like it is for me) consider Mamiya's 6/6mf, a little lighter and with the retractable lens mount, thin enough for a briefcase. Same substantial feel and lens quality as the 7, but exc cond lenses are available at affordable prices anywhere except the US. See if you can try a few of them out, there are differences in handling, speed of operation, etc.

I feel the caveats over MF rangefinders are over-stated, they are pretty easy to get along with on the whole. Many people don't use pola or nd filters, the contrasty lens render colour really well and have a character all their own. Good luck!

[struan_gray]

I hike and climb with a Kowa Super 66 and have learned to just put up

with the bulk and weight, but I would love to 'upgrade' to a MF

rangefinder. However, I find ease and simplicity of handling to be a

much greater issue than size, and I was disappointed to see that the

Bronica's only wide-angle lens requires an external viewfinder.

 

I understand the engineering tradeoffs between the rangefinder

magnification needed to focus the Bronica's long lens, and the

viewfinder field of view, but as a travel and wilderness camera it

would be more attractive to me if a basic wide, normal and tele set of

lenses could be used without pfaffing about with add-on doodads.

 

The Mamiya 7 has a similar problem, at least if like me you like the

look from a 50mm-ish lens on 6x6/6x7. Unless the Bronica turns out to

be significantly smaller and lighter, a secondhand Mamiya 6 is still

the most attractive option.

[duncan_ross1]

I have the Mamiya 7 and like Struan, I also use a Kowa 66. As I have become used to the Mamiya 7, it is replacing the 66 for any backpacking work. Actual image area vs viewfinder area does take some testing at various focus distances, but this is a rangefinder thing. I have found the lenses to be top quality (you can see mtf info on photodo). The 6x7 image area is really nice and allows rectangular or square composition. The Mamiya 7 has a great used market, which should be a factor in addition to their many years of rangefinder design experience.

 

I find that the 80mm lens is the most handy followed by the 150. I also have the 43, which does have the disadvantage of needing the add on viewfinder. Speed and ease of use with the 43mm and viewfinder is equal to the Kowa setup(and quieter), the 7 is faster than the Kowa if I use the 80 or 150. I do miss interchangeable backs, but may get a second body at some point. For landscape work, it's a great camera at 40% of the weight of a Kowa66 system. I haven't had any luck at all with portraits using the 7 - It's tough to know where the edge of the actual frame is.... but maybe I need more practice.

[struan_gray]

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that using an extra viewfinder is

particularly slow, just that it adds another thing to swap when you

change to a different focal length. It also makes the camera a more

awkward (and delicate) shape to pull in and out of a pouch or bag.

This is probably a bigger factor for technical climbing than for

hiking or travel photography.

 

Perhaps the Mamiya 6/7 owners can say: is it possible to change a lens

with one hand? Wearing gloves?

[paul_wilson2]

It's probably possible (though very awkward) to change a lens one-handed on the M6 or M7. With any reasonable gloves it's probably impossible. The problem isn't so much changing the lens but dealing with the film curtain as the controls on the bottom are just too small. The 7II would be a little easier but still very difficult.

 

As for the finder for the wide-angle. I have the 80 and 43mm lenses. If I'm using the 80, I often leave the 43's finder on. This way I can check what the alternate angle of view will look like and decide if I want to change lenses before doing so.

[waterden]

Rather a late post to this forum but maybe pertinent as Bronica RF645s are now being heavily discounted. I am also pondering buying one or the other and it seems to me there are basically 3 issues here apart from the obvious ones like image size / orientation and weight and size, where the differences are minor. Firstly, the M7 has a much broader list of accessories and, particularly, lenses. Secondly, Tamron (Bronica) seems to be getting out of MF which may not augur well for future support. Finally, and to me this is key, the M7 has an accessory which allows the use of 35mm film in two frame (24x65) panoramic format. Now that is useful is it not?