Bokeh: Choosing between Mamiya and Bronica 645

[moccia]

Toward the end of 2004 I`ll buy an used MF system. <p>

I wrote <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=007CmQ">here</a> what I'm going to use it for. <p>

I`m considering Mamiya 645 (1000s or Super). But I like Bronica ETRSi

645 too.

With Bronica I will gain a better integration with leaf shutter and

TTL flash.

I will loose focal plane shutter that can give me the opportunity to

use

a cheap Russian shift lens on the Mamiya.

This minus is not really constraining because I can buy a

shift lens for my 35mm system. <p>

So, I will put the final word on another issue that I didn`t mention

on my previous post:

which system offer lenses with a good bokeh?

On my 35mm Nikon lens lineup I really like the look of the 105mm f2.5.

I suppose that on MF, having less DOF than with 35mm (at the same FOV

and f-stop),

the results are more dependant on this lens feature.<p>

Any advice?

No I will not consider Hasselblad. I could afford a starter kit

(body, back and normal lens),

but then I couldn`add a wide-angle and a portrait lenses.<p>

I will buy from KEH. Any other reliable places form online orders?

[cooper8168]

To me, lens bokeh is one of those really subjective qualities that just boil down to

personal taste. I have both a Mamiya 645 1000s and a Mamiya 6MF (in addition to a good-

sized Nikon system based around D100 and F100 bodies). I hear all the time how

people can't stand the bokeh on the 75mm lens for the 6, but I <i>really</i> like it. It

gives me a quality that I like my pictures to have. I know, you are not asking about that

system, so I have to say that to me, the 645's 80mm and 210mm lenses are smoother

than the 6 and in fact are much more like what I get with my equivalent Nikon glass, which

should give you what you want.

[walter_groves]

i guess this is actually a question what the heck is bokeh?

[dale_dickerson2]

The Mamiya will also let you use the p-6 mount Carl Zeiss Jena (DDR) lenses, plus the Hartblei 150mm. I view the Harblei 150mm as second only to my 150mm Sonnar for portrait work.

 

I have not seen a p-6 adapter for the Bronica 645.

[._._z]

I think you'll notice more differences between these lenses in terms of contrast than bokeh.

Mamiya 645 lenses tend to be lower (with older ones sometimes much lower) in contrast.

Personally I like the look from Zeiss lenses even though I'm not crazy about Hasselblad

bodies.

 

Walter: search.

[raymond bradlau]

I believe Bokeh is a term used to describe the highlights in the out of focus area

 

Also subjective is an understatement

 

I have the ETRSi 50mm MC, 75mmPE, 150mm PE and find the OOF areas to be very

nice, but I really cant make a comparision except to 35mm

[diego_k.]

Chris Im with you on the 75mm for the 6, love that camera.

[steve_levine]

Bokeh is something that camera collectors think about,and that medium format shooters have never heard of.

[wim_van_velzen]

MF-users never heard of bokeh?

<p>

Sorry, that is a silly remark (unless I missed a sarcasm in your words).

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[skygzr]

Steve, I think you�re wrong on both points. But, bokeh is subjective�not so much as to whether lenses have differing qualities, but as to whether it makes a difference.

 

By way of answering your question, I didn�t like the out of focus qualities of the Bronica lenses. They�re very harsh, in my highly subjective opinion. I�m less sure about the Mamiya so maybe someone else can help you there.

[steve_levine]

Who needs to worry about out of focus highlights,and why?If your photos have interesting subjects,who looks at the out of focus areas?I never heard of bokeh untill I stumbled onto photo.net.(I have since seen that Prof.Merklinger has written about this.He also wrote several irrelevant tomes on focusing view cameras).It seems like something to worry about,for those that have nothing else to worry about?In all my years of commercial work,Ive yet to have a client bitch about bad bokeh.I mean who really gives a sh-t about this?

[moccia]

Steve, <p>

I do.

Yes is subjective. But I do prefer the 105mm f2.5 to the 85mm f2 (Nikkor lenses) for portrait.

[dale_dickerson2]

Bokeh can and does make a difference. Just as the focal length, contrast, sharpness make a difference. The question of lens bokeh is one of many choices, like choice of natural color, vivid color or ultra color film to use. Even a poor bokeh lens can be put to good use in creating an image. It is one of the choices the photographer makes.

[ken_burns1]

Bokeh is just hekob spelled backwards.

[skygzr]

Steve -

 

I still think you're wrong, but I don't need to change your mind. There may be more than one answer to this question.

[raymond bradlau]

A pretty good explanation can be found at....

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

[derek_stanton2]

"Who needs to worry about out of focus highlights,and why?If your photos have

interesting subjects,who looks at the out of focus areas?"

 

'Interesting' perspective. I've always been under the impression that EVERYTHING in

the frame of a photograph has at least SOME consequence. The fact that one hasn't

heard of the term 'bokeh' until recently has no significance. The phenomenon has

been in existence as long as there has been vision. The term may be recent/newly

adopted, but so what.

 

To suggest that medium format photographers don't use this terminology is utterly

ridiculous. Collectors only? Silly. Collectors wouldn't have reason to discuss it, since

there wouldn't be any resultant imagery. If you wonder why 'oldschool' master

photographers like Avedon and Penn perhaps haven't discussed it, this too is

irrelevant. Any casual glance at an Avedon book featuring his out of studio work with

a Rolleiflex TLR will show that bokeh is very often a feature of those photographs.

But, not every photographer uses bokeh as an aesthetic component. If you shoot

color primarily, bokeh is usually lost in the clutter. If you shoot only stopped-down

for max d.o.f., it's a moot point, and all lenses are pretty much the same. But,

anyone who shoots fashion or portraiture probably should have an interest in how

their lenses transition from focus to out-of-focus. I've seen a good number of

pictures ruined by distracting background elements that would have benefited from

competent use of selective focus with good bokeh. If you don't recognize this, you

might ask yourself why a lot of great photographers praise so highly certain lenses.

It's no accident that the Hasselblad 110FE, Contax 85mm 1.4, Leica 85mm 1.4, Canon

85mm 1.2, Pentax 105mm 2.4, Leica 50mm Summicron, etc. are prized. It's not (just)

about sharpness or color rendition.'

 

With regard to Luigi's question, i cannot comment on the Bronica line. I can point you

to a folder of pictures by another photo.net member who uses the Mamiya very nicely

- Chris Blaszczyk

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=58427

 

In my opinion, the Mamiya 'does bokeh' very well. Creamy, smooth. A pro glamour/

fashion photographer who uses the manual focus Mamiyas is Antoine Verglas.

 

And, yes, i do highly recommend KEH. They are honest people, and tend to underrate

their gear (for example, an "Ex" lens from KEH might be rated "LN/LN-" by someone

else).

 

With regard to your previous thread "what i'm going to use it for" - you mention the

possiblity of using other manufacturers' lenses. As far as i'm aware, there aren't such

adapters for the Bronica. For the Mamiya, yes:

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm#Medium%20Format%202%201/

4%20%20Lens%20Adapters:

[robert_grasing]

FWIW: Bronica lens for the ETRS, SQ and PG cameras have a very good

reputation in Japan for their bokeh, and Japanese have been serious

about that lens characteristic for a very long time. I haven't read

or heard anything about the Mamiya 645 lenses, good or bad, so I

can't comment.

 

Basically, good bokeh should slowly dissolve or melt the out of focus

part of the image. Bad bokeh looks a bit fractured, often dividing

into two lines. That's how it is judged. But of course ultimately

it's a matter of taste.

[gary_yeowell]

Very well said Derek, agree with you entirely. Add the Zeiss 120f4 makro to your line-up of great bokeh lenses.

[andrewlamb]

Luigi,

 

I tend to agree with Steve, although he possibly put the case rather more

forcefully than I would have (s). Given the kind of work you have described

you intend to do I would not get hung up on notions of bokeh.

 

Bokeh is a rather arcane, academic subject that is largely of interest only to

SOME photographers. I agree with Steve that clients and the public at large

will not give it one second's thought.

 

I have talked to DOPs on movie sets where you would think the issue had

more revelance. Some DOPs think it's important and others have stared at me

with a sad look in their eyes at the geekiness of my question.

 

Go for whatever you can afford and what you understand to be the most

suitable/reliable system for your needs.

 

FWIW, I think you could pick up some Rollei 6000 gear for a lot less than you

imagine.

 

Good luck with your project in Italy.

 

Andrew

[andre_noble4]

The Bronica bokeh is indeed very nice. I have the 135 and 180 PS portrait lenses, and that was one of the surprises about them in addition to the good color saturation of the image overall.

[derek_stanton2]

There's nothing "arcane" about the topic. It's simply relevant only to people who are

aware of it. And, since crux of the initial post/query was regarding bokeh, it's a bit

ridiculous to suggest that it shouldn't be of interest to Luigi.

 

That bokeh has only relatively recently been a topic of discussion is probably most

due to the internet. I doubt that it was ever previously a hot topic of conversation

amongst photographers. But, then again, neither were MTF curves. The net

community ensures that we can be better informed than we were before.

 

Previously, i only knew that i responded to the work of certain photographers, for

reasons aside from subject matter, that i didn't ever put into words. Now that those

words - bokeh / nissen - are known, i'm more aware (perhaps paranoid) of what i

like. That awareness also allows me to USE the effect more capably.

 

Surely, the public at large is unaware of such talk. Clients, however, aren't entirely

blind. I'm an art director, and i purchase photography. As a consumer, as well, i

purchase a good number of photography books. I know that i respond to certain

types of imagery, and 'reject' things that do not appeal to my sensibilities. There have

been a lot of books by very prominent photographers that i've passed over because i

didn't like very specific aspects of the presentation, including the tonality of the

prints, or even the reproduction quality of the books. In saying these things, i only

mean to say that different people have different 'levels' of acceptability, as well as

different degrees of interest in certain aspects of the things they value. I find it a bit

offensive to read that people are advising someone not to care about something he

obviously already does care about. In the same way you may deem him (or me)

obsessive about arcana, he (or i) might judge your images harshly because of a lack

of sensitivity to areas we care about. Make your own pictures, and don't try to tell

everyone else that theirs should look like yours....

 

Luigi wrote that he is interested in travel portraiture. One should acknowledge that

the best photographers in that genre have typically worked with lenses known for

good bokeh. Leica and Zeiss, and/or Canon and Nikon primes. If those photographers

aren't often heard discussing bokeh, it's perhaps incidental that their photographs do

display it. Similarly, if those of you who don't care about it so much are shooting

primarily with zooms, or in color, or favour small apertures, or also just happen to be

shooting with 'good' lenses, well, incidentally, bokeh probably just isn't relevant to

you.

 

The problem with advising someone who cares about bokeh to ignore it...well, it's

pretty much like gambling with someone else's money. Before the flood of

information that can now be found online, i went through a couple of medium format

camera systems, knowing i was looking for a particular lens characteristic/signature,

but not knowing how to quantify it, and not yet knowing that those characteristics

were common to certain lens lines. Luigi is about to spend money. A significant

amount of money to him, and it's a disservice to suggest that he shouldn't buy with

deference to what is of interest TO HIM.

[andrewlamb]

Derek,

 

I think you have made very good points and I wouldn't really argue very

strongly with anything you've said. BUT, don't you think the whole thing on

bokeh has gotten a teeny bit out of hand?

 

Do you really think think there's such a significant difference, in bokeh,

beteween Mamiya 645 and Bronica 645 that would influence your buying

decision over other factors?

 

I didn't say to Luigi that he shouldn't care about bokeh I'm just suggesting that,

'maybe', other factors are more important and I'm sorry if you found my

comments offensive.

 

Bokeh can be interesting to discuss and experiment with but I just feel that

sometimes it's taken to extreme lengths especially as it's such a subjective

topic. If it's in the eye of the beholder then every lens is/isn't (delete as

applicable) capable of rendering nice bokeh?

 

Andrew

[moccia]

Dear photo.net pals, <p>

easy!!! I thank all for the advices that I got. Every angle of view tell us something about the world. About the topic, I'm really glad that both camera systems can offer nice bokeh. Therefore, from now on I can concentrate on other issues. Both systems attract me. But I don't see this choice as a risky one. I know that, Mamiya or Bronica or whatever else, if I will not get nice pictures it will be only my fault! If I were in an hurry I will choose whatever best deal I can find earlier. But I'm not in such situation. This MF camera will get used in 2005. So I can indulge in slow comparisons. Dreaming about the only worth thing: being on the road with the Mediterranean light surrounding me.

[john_sparks1]

I used to own a Bronica ETRS with 75 and 150mm lenses (old versions, not PE) and now own a GS-1 with 65, 100, 110 and 150mm lenses and a RF645 with 65 and 100mm. All of these lenses have very similar, nice, smooth bokeh. I think the Bronica lenses I've used have high resolution but somewhat low contrast which helps with the smooth bokeh. The lower contrast also may look a bit less sharp than a more contrasty lens.

 

I've used a Hasselblad 110/2 and it isn't any better than the Bronica lenses except that it has less DOF.

 

I have never owned any Mamiya lenses but briefly tested a 645 with the 80/1.9 lens, an RB with a 180mm lens and the Mamiya 7 with an 80mm. The 80/1.9 has very harsh bokeh, the Zeiss 110/2 is far better. The bokeh of the Mamiya 7 80mm wasn't as bad as I expected from everything I had read, but the Bronica lenses are still better in my opinion. The M7 80mm is a very contrasty lens compared to the Bronica lenses. I used the 180mm the least and didn't see any bokeh problems, but wasn't really looking for that at the time. I've also seen some pretty harsh looking bokeh in several photographs in Mamiya brochures.