Bronica RF645 review by Mike Johnston

[john_morris1]

Mike Johnston posted a review of the Bronica RF645 to the rangefinder

list

(rflist at topica.com), and he invited people to repost his "modest

little

report" to other interested forums.  As I thought that this forum

might be one of those, here it is.

<p>-John Morris

<p>

<hr WIDTH="100%">

<br>Completely on-topic for once, I'd like to post a brief report of

the

new Bronica RF645 compact rangefinder that I shot with yesterday. I

only

gave it a quick trial--they had one on display at Reimer's in

Milwaukee.

I left my Leica hanging hostage from the salesguy's neck and took

their

RF645 outdoors for a stroll.

<p>My friend Michael Reichmann posted a comparison of the Bronica

RF645

and Mamiya 7 on his excellent website luminous-landscape.com that

tilted

decisively towards the Mamiya. I wrote a full review of the Mamiya 6

for

the old <u>Camera & Darkroom</u>, briefly owned a Mamiya 6, and am

very familiar with the Mamiya 7. I like them both--they're great

cameras--but

my own reactions tilted just as decisively, and just as quickly,

towards

the Bronica.

<p>I think our different reactions have to do with shooting style.

Michael

shoots landscape, while I'm more of a people-and-passing-scene type of

photographer. (Wow--I've never actually been able to pigeonhole my

style

of photography so briefly before. <g>)

<p>As a black-and-white negative film shooter, I like everything about

645. My philosophy has always been that the smaller the negative is,

the

easier the camera is to handle in the field; the larger the negative

is,

the easier (or perhaps I should just say the more rewarding) it is to

make

the print in the darkroom. As a shooter of only medium-level skills

but

a darkroom whiz, I've always chosen to go with 35mm--it gives me the

advantage

where I most need it, and I enjoy (and am up to) the challenge of

struggling

with the small negatives in the darkroom. The 645 format tilts the

balance

a bit more towards fine printmaking, without much cost in the field.

It's

a nice compromise.

<p>It's also practical--16 645 negs fit on to a single proof sheet,

yet

are generally large enough to "read" as contacts. I even like the

aspect

ratio (shape) of the neg. I like the fact that the 645 negative is

still

small, allowing the use of shorter lenses with better d.o.f. (for

roughly

the same angle of view on 6x7 as the RF645's 65mm normal lens, a lens

of

80mm focal length is needed).

<p>So now you're aware of all my many prejudices <g>.

<p>Another camera I tested for the now-defunkt <u>C&D</u> was the

Fuji

GS645S, a plastic, manual rangefinder 645 I'm sure many of you are

familiar

with. Like the Fuji, the Bronica's viewfinder is "turned on end"

relative

to what 35mm shooters are accustomed to. Its native orientation is

vertical.

I really liked the old GS645S's vertical format orientation back when

I

used that camera. Even when I shoot with 6x6cm square format, I tend

to

crop to a vertical 645-sized frame much of the time. I find it a

natural

way to see. Michael Reichmann wasn't pleased with this vertical

orientation,

since he says 75% of his shooting is horizontal. For me it tips more

towards

verticals. So my reaction is the opposite of his.

<p>The RF645 is reasonably small and it's certainly well-balanced.

It's

not heavy--about the same weight as a Nikon F100. Just for yuks, I

hoisted

a full-dress Canon EOS-1v alternately with the Bronica, and the 35mm

Canon

was easily both larger and heavier than the rangefinder. The Bronica

has

a sizeable handgrip that felt good to me, one that leaves the hand in

a

comfortable position relative to virtually all the meaningful

controls.

<p>I was impressed with both the feature-pack and the control layout.

Bronica

endowed the camera with just about every feature I want in a camera,

from

aperture-preferred AE to exposure compensation to a cable release

socket,

but they didn't load down the cameras with fanciness and fripperies

that

I'd rather not pay for--no laser beams or whirring micromotors or

miniature

fireworks displays in the finder. The controls on the camera back are

particularly

nice--everything you need within easy reach of the thumb (AE lock and

a

nifty, handy lever for exposure compensation), with locks only where

you

need them (on the ISO setting, for instance). Bronica gets high praise

for ergonomics.

<p>The Canadian magazine <u>Photo Life</u> inexplicably gave the RF645

poor marks for the viewfinder. This has created an instant stain on

the

camera's reputation around the internet. That's a shame...because

they're

full of it! I've used many different varieties of rangefinder camera

in

both medium format and 35mm, and the Bronica's finder ranks right up

there

among the best. In fact, compared directly to my M6, it scores highly-

-it's

as bright, while also being less cluttered, easier to peer into, and

easier

to focus.  No problem here.

<p>A great feature of the RF645 is the viewfinder information. You can

read on Tamron's website what-all it shows; what I was concerned with

is

whether it's visible, and whether it's distracting. Well, it is, and

it's

not. You see the shutter speed and aperture big, bright, and bold even

against a bright sky, but it's just far enough away from your direct

view

that it doesn't impinge on the image area or make an annoyance of

itself.

This is the best viewfinder information readout on any rangefinder

camera

that I'm currently aware of. They got this just right.

<p>The shutter release is something I didn't quite get a complete

handle

on. On the negative side, it seems a little less razor-sharp in its

responsiveness

than the best (remember, the camera I've been using is an M6, peerless

in this category). There's a hint of a "gear-train" kind of feel, as

if

the shutter is setting off a chain reaction of mechanical events in

the

camera. However, it appears that the camera does not "dry-fire"--that

is,

you can't fire the shutter without having film in the camera. Because

I

was taking pictures with my film, I didn't look to see when the

shutter

actually fires relative to the overall shutter "feel." It's possible

there's

some slight shutter lag going on, or it's possible it fires instantly

and

what I was perceiving as lag is merely the leaf shutter recocking

itself

after it fires or something like that. I don't know yet--I'll have to

wait

for a more extensive trial before I sort this out.

<p>On the plus side, the shutter is very quiet, as you would expect.

Off

the top of my head, I'd guess it's not quite as quiet as the Mamiya 7,

but in the same league, and it's quieter than the old Fuji I

mentioned,

which fires with a sharp "snick." I have no complaints about the noise

level.

<p>I should add that I'm really grateful for the focal length choices

on

both the Mamiya 7 and the RF645. Both the 80mm on the former and the

normal

65mm on the latter are about equivalent to 40mm on 35mm, far and away

my

favorite focal length lens on 35. I got turned on to this focal length

when I interviewed Sally Mann for <u>C&D</u>. She mentioned that

she

used to do professional photography around Lexington, Virginia, where

she

lives, and that, for her, 40mm seemed "just about perfect." She had

used

the Olympus OM Zuiko 40mm <i>f</i>/2. That lens, along with the 40/2

Summicron-C

and 40/2 M-Rokkor, subsequently became my favorite lenses. Forty

millimeter

has got a more relaxed view on 35mm than a 50mm, yet it scrubs off

that

hint of wide-angly feeling that 35mms have. Some people won't think

this

is anything special, and I won't argue with them. For me, however,

both

these normal focal lengths are just to my own taste.

<p>The whole camera has a decidedly pleasing, well-integrated feel

overall.

The smoothly-focusing lens connects precisely to the the big, bright

rangefinder

focusing patch; the lens falls very comfortably to hand. This is an

outstandingly

easy and comfortable camera to focus. And the overall balance of the

camera

is great. The easy, very comfortable feeling of the focusing coupled

with

the big, bright, easy-to-see viewfinder makes the camera seem

welcoming

and unfussy. The main selling point of the Leica M6 to me is that it's

so pleasing to shoot with--it's just nice to use. It seems to invite

you

to take iit out and play with it. I'm betting the Bronica would share

a

fair amount of this property. Only time would tell that tale, of

course.

<p>Overall, I got a feeling of technology, and especially ergonomics,

being

at <i>my</i> service, instead of being at the service of the sales

brochure--like

the camera design was deliberately aimed at real, practicing

photographers

rather than gadget freak camera nuts.

<p>Finally, as has been a tradition with Bronica for many years, value

for the dollar is very high--for a "suggested street price" of only

$1,800

you get both camera and lens, and the associated flash and the other

lenses

are equally inexpensive. This seems right in line with what I'd want

to

pay for something less than a studio camera, and compared to other

medium-format

options it verges on being a steal. Remember that economies of scale

don't

factor in nearly as much with medium format, which is a big part of

what

keeps prices so high. Given this reality, $1,800 is more of a bargain

than

maybe it appears at first glance if you don't shoot medium format now-

-compare

prices on medium-format cameras in the B&H pages in <u>POP</u> and

you'll get a better idea how inexpensive the RF645 really is.

<p>It appears that a few people on this list have a low opinion of

magazine

reviewers...and I used to be one. I suppose I should take umbrage at

this,

especially given the amount of crap I've had to take from unhappy

manufacturers

over the years. But I don't, really. Anyway, I know that this is a

positive

note; but that's because I was really pleased and seriously impressed

with

this little camera. In fact, I liked it so much it took me by

surprise--I'm

really good at nitpicking flaws in cameras, as any of my photo-friends

will heartily attest to. Granted, rollfilm is a minority format, and

rangefinders

(except around here <g>) aren't everybody's cup of tea. With those

two

caveats, the Bronica looks like something quite special. I'm just

worried

about my credit card at this point.

<p>--Mike

<p>P.S. Please feel free to repost this modest little report anywhere

on

the internet where you think it might reach interested parties. I

don't

mind. I'll update it if/when I get to put more time in with the RF645.

Insofar as I'd be of any help, questions can be directed to

michaeljohnston@ameritech.net.

<br>

<hr WIDTH="100%">

[tim_klein1]

Thanks for posting this John. I think the reviewer missed a key point about lenses for the RF645 though.

 

I'd been considering purchasing the Bronica as a compliment to my Mamiya 7. The vertical format seems like it would make this the perfect portrait camera. Unfortunately, like the Mamiya, the lenses focus no closer than 1 meter. The lens that most closely matches what would normally be considered a portrait lens (135mm; equivalent to 80mm on 35mm film), only focuses down to 1.8 meters (nearly 6 feet).

 

Mamiya has claimed for quite some time that designing a lens for the M7 that focuses any closer than this would require changes to the body that would make it substantially larger and heavier. I've never really understood why, but Bronica's lens selection seems to confirm this limitation. Can someone who knows a little bit about lens design explain why this is so?

[jkantor]

It would be a great camera if it had a spotmeter.

[david_goldfarb]

Thanks for posting. I've ported it to the Bronica list on Yahoo Groups.

 

Rangefinders can't focus closely for two reasons: Parallax error and short DOF. To correct for parallax error, you can add additional frame lines in the finder, but the closer you get, the more imprecise it is. To deal with short DOF, you need a longer rangefinder base (distance between the finder mirror and the rangefinder mirror) to make focusing more precise, which means making the camera bigger.

[Robin Smith]

Interesting review but absolutely nothing about the lenses, what they are and how well they perform - compared to the M7...or anything. Can you do a head shot? How close can you focus?

 

I for one am disappointed that the lenses are only f4 or slower. Even a Hasselblad has an f2.8 80mm - so does Mamiya 645. For a 645 cameras I think this is a real disadvantage.

[john_whitman]

I wonder: If Mamiya and Bronica had incorporated into their 6x7 and

645 rangefinders everyone's wish lists--larger rangefinder, faster

lenses, etc.--would everyone say "Great cameras! But they're as big

and heavy as an SLR; rangefinders should be small and light!"

 

Hmmm?

[david_goldfarb]

Once again, the problem is focus with a fast lens. If you want your 80/2.8 to be sharp wide open, you need to widen the rangefinder base.

 

Consider the upside: With no mirror slap, you can handhold the camera at lower speeds.

[mike_johnston]

To respond to Tim Klein's complaint, I did try the close-focus,

and it didn't seem to warrant comment. Rangefinders are just

not the proper tools for closeup work, and longer minimum focus

distance is a given--the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron on the M6

focuses to arm's length, for instance, while my SMCP-M Pentax

35/2 SLR lens will focus down to mere inches. This is typical of

all rangefinders. I apologize for not pointing this out--since the

original post went to the rangefinder list, I just assumed the folks

reading it would already be familiar with this general

characteristic.

 

At a philosophical level, my position is that there just isn't such a

thing as a "perfect" or perfectly all-purpose camera, and I gave

up the search for such a thing years ago. In fact, my opinion has

gradually shifted into the opposite point of view, so I think John

Whitman's point is astute. In trying to add capability and

features--trying to be all things to all photographers, and, in the

process, becoming something they aren't--otherwise good

camera designs sometimes become compromised. A

rangefinder is a rangefinder; they're not the best portrait cameras

(althought I do a lot of portraits with them) or the best macro

cameras--nor, for that matter, would you try to use them for long

telephoto work. The RF645 is what it is, and it's good for what it's

good for. That's okay with me. I'd rather a camera just go ahead

and be good at its principle design brief and play to its basic

strengths instead of trying to load on features in a vain attempt to

appeal to the broadest possible market segment.

 

It's true that the lenses are slow, and I was remiss not to say so.

I've gotten in the habit of simply not mentioning things in

write-ups that people can read for themselves in the

manufacturer's literature. Many published reviews, I think, are

just regurgitatons of the brochure, which I personally find boring.

It would definitely be better if there were at least one normal lens

of f/2.8 aperture (possibly there will be in the future--I don't know.)

But, again, it's fairly typical--the 80mm for the Mamiya 7 is an f/4,

as is the lens on the little Fuji GS645S. To me the more crucial

point would be whether the f/4 aperture is truly usable or not,

which, for me, remains to be seen.

 

Thanks for all the responses. My opinion is far from completely

formed about the Bronica; my "report" was just a quick first look.

[tim_klein1]

Mike - Thanks for following up here. I appreciate the time you took to write up your impressions, and I hope my message didn't come off sounding too critical. These type of user reviews are what make photo.net such a great resource. I just wanted to make sure that nobody misinterpreted your statement about how you were more impressed with the camera than Michael Reichmann because, as a "people-and-passing-scene type of photographer", you shoot more verticals. I was afraid someone might think the "people" part of that statement included portraits. As you've rightly pointed out, this isn't necessarily the case.

 

Thanks again for your review. I'm sure many will find it useful!

[john_hicks___]

> It's true that the lenses are slow

 

I wonder why this is so common these days.

 

Sure technical reasons are trotted out, such as a longer RF base would be required (so...) and that leaf shutters would have to be the next size larger (so...) but those always seem to me to be excuses rather than good reasons.

 

I have a feeling that it's simply fear on the part of the bean-counters. Their arms are probably still hurting from all the twisting it took to go along with the new little RF camera, but they just couldn't bring themselves to allow the designers to do it _right_.

 

Of course not everyone will buy the fast lens, but like the Noctilux, it'd be nice if it was available for those willing to spend the bucks and lug it around. It could be a selling point (who's got the biggest, fastest etc) rather than the lack of it being a sale killer.

[msitaraman]

I tend to agree with John Hicks on this.

 

The lens and shutter mechanism on a Rolleiflex 2.8 is not all that big, and quite amenable to being separate-just look at the lenses for a Mamiya TLR. For that matter consider the Plaubel/Makina 67s with their shutter Nikkor 2.8s-not so big eh?

 

As for minimum focusing distance, the lenses themselves, upto 150mm, only need a slightly longer helicoid to be able to focus closer.

 

And the rangefinder base length-this is totally bogus, as an issue.

 

Rangefinder baselength depends only on how you machine the top deck-its quite easy to add a couple of inches to the RF baselength, if your body size will allow it, as most MF body designs will, relative to 35mm.

 

The problem, I'm sure too, is one of overly timid, cost-cutting, adaptive design/r&d, rather than anything else.

[tim_klein1]

Mani & John - You may be right that its primarily a financial consideration, but the costs to a company could be far more than just design and engineering.

 

I'm more familiar with Mamiya than Bronica so I'll use them for my example: Mamiya might be able to design a faster lens for the M7 at a relatively reasonable engineering cost, but what other concerns might they have? Their 150mm lens has the reputation of being one of the sharpest medium format lenses available, but it also has a reputation for being a bit difficult to focus. Adding a stop to the lens speed (and therefore, the associated reduction of depth of field), would only make this problem worse. What does that cost Mamiya? Increased customer service costs, reduction in customer product opinion, possible sales reductions for the lens, maybe even reduced sales for the whole M7 system due to customer perceptions. They already take an incredible amount of heat for a perceived problem with the accuracy of their rangefinder. How much worse would that get if they brought out a faster lens that made this perception even worse?

 

Mamiya claims it's a technical issue, which it is; the rangefinder system is only accurate enough to focus acceptably to within the depth of field at f4.5. You call it penny pinching by "bean counters" since designing a faster lens seems like it should be relatively cheap. Costs and technical considerations go hand in hand though, and the hidden costs could be anything BUT cheap in the long run.

 

The fact that Mamiya and Bronica BOTH decided to go with f4 as their widest aperture, lead me to believe there is more to the question than simply timid penny pinching.

[ernest_stein]

I was able to get my hands on a RA645 at my local camera shop. Very nice, fit my hands as if it were made for me. Your comments are on a line with how I feel, after shooting a few frames. Thr store donated the color print film and did the developing as well, very sharp prints.. I am still undecided only because of the vertical orientation. I shoot more landscapes then anything else but I suppose I could adapt in time.

In discussing the lens speed, one very important factor was left out. The market survey department seems to have more to say about the

specs then we want to believe. Before Mamiya or Bronica lets their engineers and designers loose, market survey has a very loud voice in the final product. An e-mail to Fuji asking if their 645Zi will have a longer zoom in the future gets the response that market survey told them it's not needed.

[msitaraman]

Tim,

Points well taken!

 

But, OTOH, this was Mamiya's second design excursion into a 150mm RF lens and body, the first being the Mamiya 6, which had exactly the same accuracy/minimum focus distance problem. Adding a 20 to 30mm of base line length to the rangefinder mechanism in a generously sized body would have solved the problem they knew existed. What is striking about this rangefinder is the relatively generous size body and lack of use of the space it offers.

 

I'm sure the economics of production of a medium format RF design in this day and age (its no million seller, far from it) mean they could not take too many chances, but if you build a rangefinder from scratch, why not get it right in the most basic design area-i.e. an adequate length rangefinder base? The rest is basically a roll film winder and an external reflective meter stuck into one corner of a large body.

 

I agree more about the lens specs-f2.8 and f2 lenses with built in shutters can be monsters, just look at Hasselblad and more to the point, Rollei (I'm not sufficiently familar with Mamiya and Bronica SLRs)). But still, despite the excellence of lens design and the nice handling bodies, is this the best that could have been done for the money?

[msitaraman]

Thanks for the very detailed review, Mike, and thank you John for putting it up.

 

I have only handled (often) an RF645 in a shop, but the ergonomics are first rate, and the viewfinder terrific if you shoot portraits and people. Any rangefinder user will concede that this camera has first rate userfriendliness and speed. Particularly impressive is the exposure compensation dial, and the way the viewfinder display seems to fade out of view when you concentrate on the picture.

 

A note-the $1800 price of the RF645 is similar to its Japan price-very good for MF. But the Mamiya 7 with the 80/2.8 is around the same price overseas (check www.robertwhite.co.uk) give or take. So it is only in the US that the street price of the RF645 stands alone.

[john_hicks___]

> They already take an incredible amount of heat for a perceived problem with the accuracy of their rangefinder. How much worse would that get if they brought out a faster lens that made this perception even worse?

 

That highlights the imho flawed design. Mamiya can't make a faster lens because the RF base isn't long enough for accurate focusing of a longer lens. Why isn't it longer? Because a decision was made that faster lenses wouldn't be offered, therefore there was no need for a longer-base RF. That the base length may not be sufficient for the lenses used may be a design flaw that came from some non-technical need to keep the RF base as short as possible. I think the base length of the Mamiya 6 and 7 _is_ long enough and that while some problems stem from misadjustment most are simple pilot error.

 

So why did Mamiya decide that faster lenses wouldn't be offered? There clearly isn't a technical reason; after all, Plaubel, Linhof and Graflex have produced 6x7 RF cameras with f2.8 normal lenses. That leaves only a marketing reason.

 

I suspect Mamiya's market research showed that the "average" user would use EI 160-400 film and would use flash; that would justify making only slow lenses. While that decision may be valid from a market-research viewpoint, the result for some potential customers is that the system isn't an option because it's dramatically insufficient.

 

You can tell I'm a dinosaur because I think there are lots of good reasons for fast lenses.

[squareframe]

I am quite sure Mamiya and Bronica know there are many fine lenses to add to their offering. I also suspect that they, much better than any of us, understand the economic ramifications and the clear fact that if they don't research/design/market wisely, they will no longer be able to provide anything to anyone. I believe they understand their potential niche, and have chosen the best set of compromises needed to satisfy most of their clients and ultimately make a profit.

[tim_klein1]

Not to pick nits John, but you'll notice I said a "perceived" problem with accuracy <grin>. I think that very few people actually experience a problem, but the worry is obviously out there since nearly everyone who asks about the M7 on this list also asks about the focusing accuracy.

 

I don't really disagree with any of your comments except the one about it being "dramatically insufficient" for some. Every camera system is dramatically insufficient for somebody! Yes, Mamiya and Bronica could alter their systems to include different rangefinder systems, they could offer faster lenses, heck! they could put autofocus and motor drives on the things too if they really wanted. That might make it a better system for your needs. I bought into the system for its light weight, handling ease, and lens sharpness though. The added size, weight, and cost, of the proposed "features" would make the system worthless to me. They wouldn't have added to the customer base in that case, they'd have merely shifted it.

 

As for the lens speed question; A bigger, heavier lens definitely goes against the design philosophy of these systems (large image size with 35mm like handling ease. These are "carry around" cameras). Personally, I don't see much use for an extra stop on a camera like this. Since they are rangefinders, the extra stop makes absolutely no difference when focusing, and in low light, an extra stop of shutter speed is usually the least of my worries. The depth of field on these lenses is miniscule; a mere 2 1/2 inches when using the 80mm at minimum focus distance, jumping to a whopping 11 inches at 6ft and a little over 2 feet when focusing at 10ft. If I'm calculating correctly, an extra stop would drop those numbers to 1.9 inches, 6.2 inches, and 14.8 inches. Hey, I'm good, but I ain't THAT good! If I'm shooting landscapes, I've got a tripod. Again, the extra stop makes no difference.

 

Unlike 35mm, where through the lens focusing and action capturing shutter speeds cry out for fast lenses, I just can't imagine an extra stop making the difference in whether I get a shot or not with a medium format rangefinder.

[john_hicks___]

> Not to pick nits John, but you'll notice I said a "perceived" problem with accuracy <grin>. I think that very few people actually experience a problem, but the worry is obviously out there since nearly everyone who asks about the M7 on this list also asks about the focusing accuracy.

 

Well, unfortunately with the M7 there does appear to be some sort of problem with the RF adjustment or having it stay in adjustment; that's been a too-common topic of conversation and perhaps one reason so many ask about it. I've been using a couple of M6 bodies about 10 years now, haven't yet managed to knock the RFs out of adjustment, and I don't recall there being much discussion about the M6 RF.

 

A friend has an M7 and so far as I know he's been pleased with it.

 

I think a really big problem, especially with the much-more-popular M7, is that probably most buyers have never used an RF camera of any sort and they're way behind the learning curve plus there's the modern notion that the camera should do that sort of thing automatically.

 

> I don't really disagree with any of your comments except the one about it being "dramatically insufficient" for some.

 

OK...well, maybe that was a little over the top. <g>

 

What brings this on is that I like to shoot available-darkness and like to use 6x7. The only modern solution in an RF camera is the Plaubel 67/670, which has a reputation for being fairly delicate, doesn't have interchangeable lenses and sells for almost-collectible prices.

 

My solution is a Graflex XL with an f2.8 Planar and a Horseman rollback; it's a clunky heavy somewhat ponderous beast but it works.

 

An M7 with an f2.8 lens would be a no-brainer...if there was such a thing. Unlike using slower film, there's a pretty big difference between Delta 3200 in 645 or a 645 rectangle cropped out of 6x6 and the same film in 6x7.

[mike_johnston]

I would guess that the f/4 maximum aperture of the normal lens

has as much, if not more, to do with the size of the leaf shutter

mechanism as it has to do with the difficulty of focusing a faster

lens with the rangefinder. The shutter on the Plaubel Makina

resembled a view camera shutter; it was heavier and much

larger in diameter than the Bronica RF645 lens.

 

Bronica tells me there are presently no plans to introduce a

faster normal lens.

 

I personally think it's just one of those tradeoffs each of us has to

decide for himself about. I liked the normal lens for the RF645, at

least as far as size, weight, and handling are concerned. I'm

having the film I shot processed now.

 

--Mike

 

P.S. John H., e-mail me, would you? I can't seem to get through

to you. michaeljohnston@ameritech.net.

[andrew_schank]

I've checked out the Bronica, and it isn't as compact as I was hoping it would be. I still think there is room on the market for a more simple, inexpensive 645 rangefinder with interchangeable lenses. I actually e-mailed Cosina a while back and asked them if they'd ever consider a "Bessa 645" camera with a simple focal plane shutter and a hand full of inexpensive Cosina quality optics to go with it. I got a response from them thanking me for my comments. I'd settle for a 1/60 flash sync for the simplicity and less expensive design. Imagine a 645 equivalent of the 12mm or 15mm Voigtlander rangefinder lenses!

[Robin Smith]

Well I am with John Hicks - faster lenses are always more useful (within reason) - as I say, the Mamiya 645 and most other 6 x 6 cameras have an f2 or f2.8. Also the lens is only a 65mm - that is equivalent to a 40mm lens on a Leica CL and that was f2 AND the camera was very small (probably smaller relatively speaking than the Bronica). The tiny CL can also happily focus an f2 50mm. I therefore do not see why f2.8 for the Bronica would be so difficult - I am not suggesting the 135 is f2.8 (or even the wide angle), but to have a standard lens limited at f4 I do see as a disadvantage. The leaf shutter on the standard Planar on the 'blad or the GX is not a monster - it is easily done and is not huge by any means. I also point out that the original Mamiya 6 standard was a 75mm f3.5 - why did they not keep this on the 80mm for the M7?

 

If it had a fast standard, I would probably buy one. Not all of us choose to shoot fast film, nor do we believe that you always want to pick slower shutter speeds. It is a pity because the Bronica is a tempting proposition. I agree with Mike though - let us hope that the f4 at least is very useable.

[mike_johnston]

Robin, no camera offers everything. Sounds to me like you need

a Contax 645, or a Rolleiflex with a Schneider 80/2. I've never

used the Contax, but the Schneider Rolleiflex lens is an

awesome lens. It's a lot of fun to use on a 6003.

[msitaraman]

Tim,

 

I don't doubt your figures about depth of field. However, it is interesting that many 35mm shooters will seek out 85/1.8 or even 85/1.4 lenses in order to shoot wide open.

 

An 80/2.8 in MF or even an 80/2.0 will offer more depth of field for the same print size�@because the enlargement factor is smaller. Anybody who has used a Rollei 2.8 or Plaubel 2.8 wide open knows that the set of situations where the extra stop comes in handy and is practical, is actually pretty large.

 

And I still don't buy Daniel Taylor's speculation. I really think that Mamiya got the basic rangefinder baselength wrong, when they had an easy opportunity to build from the ground up.

[ben_mcree]

The maximum aperture of the standard lens doesn't bother me. The more important question is how good the lens is wide open. If it has to be stopped down to 5.6 or 8 to get decent performance, then it would certainly be less appealing. Pop Photo's test of the lens indicates, if I'm remembering correctly, that it is excellent at f4. That's all I would ask of such a lens.