john_morris1

That makes the $1000 Bronica RF645 kit look pretty good....

 

It's lenses are only f/4, though.

The Plaubel Makina lens is faster, but it's not changeable....

The infinity lock is really easy to remove -- it just unscrews. After you take it out (and then put the knob and screw back together, so that you don't lose the little spring), the lens still has a tab, but it doesn't lock at infinity. Granted, a tab is not much use on that lens. It makes more sense (as a tab) on one of the smaller 50s or 35s.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about the punctuation police. Notice that I chose (intentionally) to use the European quotation form.

You could do something different and buy the Bronica RF645 kit while the $450 rebate is still in effect. The rebate is also pushing down used prices: KEH has the kit (a body and a 65mm f/4 wide-normal lens), rated "like new minus", for $999. That would be be a good daylight kit to go along with your fast Leica glass.

Mark, the Bessas must be prone to this problem, because I've heard of it before, and because all three of my Bessa Rs have had it. The first Bessa R I had was pretty good, but if you checked carefully you could tell it was off a little. I was going to just live with it, but the frame line selector broke within about a month, so I sent it back. The replacement (a different camera, not a repair) had the finder lines tilted enough that I sent it in for a warranty repair. Yet a third camera came back, and it's also pretty good, but not quite straight.

 

I'm just learning to not care too much. Already, you can't really believe what will or will not be in the frame, based on the lines, unless you want to bother to pay attention to the focus distance, to imagine how far beyond the lines the frame really is. It's not a big stretch to decide that if you really need the camera level, or lined up with something in the image, that you need to check the edges of the finder (which ARE straight), too.

 

I actually like the Bessa, believe it or not. I like the 50mm and 75mm frames being all by themselves. I like the weight of the camera. And the finder is really bright and easy to use.

 

On the other hand, my Bessa and its nice bright finder aren't being used as much lately. I got a Leica M4-P (a meterless M6 -- thanks again to Kirk Tuck) for just a little more money that a Bessa R2. I got it for two good reasons: (1) it's quieter than the Bessa, and (2) I wanted a longer rangefinder base for the Nokton 50mm f/1.5 (and even for the CV 75mm f/2.5). A not so good reason is that the longer you read this forum, the more you feel like you need a Leica.

 

Anyway, with a real Leica finder to compare it to, I have noticed some things about the Bessa finder. First, it is bright -- as bright as the Leica finder. And the rangefinder patch is similarly very bright and well defined. And the Bessa rangfinder doesn't flare out of view.

 

But the Bessa rangefinding depends a little on where your eye is. If you move a little to the right or left, the double image will shift a little. With the Leica finder, by contrast, if you can see the double image at all, you allways see the same thing. Move your eye around, and the double image may disappear or flare out, but you won't see it shift. When you combine this with a rangefinder base that's nearly twice as wide (so that the double image shifts twice as fast when you turn the lens), the Leica is noticibly easier to focus with confidence than the Bessa. Darn. As much as I would rather not carry the handheld meter, I find that I do get pictures with the Leica and Nokton that have in focus the thing that I wanted in focus.

 

And one other thing -- I looked at a picture just the other day that I took of my daughter behind some horizontal bars, and I noticed that, "hey, the bar at the top of the frame is actually lined up with the border of the print." That's not spectacular, but it would have been extra work (or luck) with the Bessa.

Another.<div></div>

Could have been a Leica cat....<div></div>

I assume that you take the bottom off the camera to get to the battery and the storage medium....

By the way (again), the AF-D 85mm f/1.8 is a really nice lens, despite the plastic housing. The manual focus feel is pretty decent for an AF lens, too, so it's quite useable with an FM3a. I won't compare it to a Leica lens, but then it costs less than $350, new, and it mounts directly on the Nikon camera.

Yes, I realize that you can't see whether or not there's mirror-induced vibration blur when the full frame is only 500 pixels wide. So here's a detail.

 

If you're holding the camera by hand at slow speeds, I think that normal photographer-induced movement (as Jim put it) will be more of a problem than vibrations added by the mirror and shutter. The FM2 series does quite well, even with the noise.<div></div>

Here's a full-height square crop of a picture taken with FM2 at 1/15, handheld, 85mm. My elbows were firmly on the floor, at least. And cats can hold really still, especially when giving a mean look. By the way, I realize that pictures of pets are forbidden by the Leica commandments, but I wasn't using a Leica.<div></div>

If you have a 50mm f/1.8, chrome, marked Canon (not Serenar), then it's newer than the Serenar, but essentially the same. The coatings may be different from the Serenar.

 

If it is a 50mm f/1.9, then it's older than the 50 f/1.8 Serenar. Canon was very proud of the 50 f/1.8, and it's not surprising if the older 50 f/1.9 is softer wide open. The Serenar 50 f/1.8, and the subsequent "Canon" 50 f/1.8 versions (both chrome and black) are quite sharp wide open. The black one is much lighter.

 

Since you got it very cheaply, maybe you can find situations in which you like its look.

Here's a Nokton bokeh sample. I think it's wide open, though it may be at f/2. I won't claim it's a great picture, but it does show out of focus behaviour for both foreground and background. I personally like the background blur better. With a couple of other 50mm lenses I have (an SLR Nikkor 50 f/1.8, and a Retina Xenon 50 f/2), it's the other way 'round: the background blur looks jarring, but the forground blur is smooth. It's good to have a choice, I guess.<div></div>

Chuck,

 

Have you figured out how to use the camera yet, without a manual? If not, and if you would like to use it before you find a manual, I can certainly type a few lines to get you going. There's not much to explain about that camera.

 

Cheers,

John

If your Yashica Mat shutter doesn't let you change speeds after cocking, then it has a problem. Probably just a little cleaning would fix it. If I'm wrong, and that is normal for a 124g, then the 124g shutter is a step backward from those in older Yashica Mats.

 

It's also easy to accidentally move the winding crank slightly forward of its rest position, and that can keep the shutter from tripping. This is a feature -- pulling the crank back to its stop (so that you could flip it back into the hole, if you wanted to) should let the shutter trip. BTW, the shutter is cocked at the same time the film is wound, on the clockwise turn. Everything would be ready to go right after the CW turn, if it weren't for that shutter-blocking gizmo.

I fixed the shutter of my recently acquired Yashica Mat LM (it just

needed some limbering -- sticky from sitting for a long time), so now

I get to put it back together. To get to the shutter, the front

section of the lens screws out. I guess I should have marked exactly

where it was before, but I didn't. Anyway, I was hoping that when I

screwed it back in, it would seat on something, but it seems to screw

down all the way to the top plate of the shutter.

 

Is this OK, or do I need to work a little harder to adjust the

spacing? Is this where I get to tape a ground glass to the back and

find something at infinity to focus on? If so, should I be adjusting

the position of the front of the lens (with respect to the back

part), or should I just screw it in snug and then adjust the position

of the whole focussing rack? There seems to be nothing designed to

hold the front lens part at a particular position if it is not

snugged down, so it would be free to turn.

 

Or am I worrying too much, and I'll have more problems with film

flatness and focus screen misalignment than with the taking lens.

 

I have one other related question. Is there a reasonable way to make

the Yashica-Mat winding mechanism quieter? I find that the shutter

is nice and quiet, but that the winder makes an assertive rachet

sound. The Yashica 635 that I'm comparing it with has only a knob

winder, but it's silent.

 

Thanks for any advice you might have.

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%">

Oh, GREAT!

 

I recently revived a couple of roll film cameras almost entirely for the reason that I can use real Reala in them. I bought all of three rolls, along with some NPH, to try out the cameras. (No sense in getting lots of film if the cameras don't work, right?) I'm hopeful that I will like NPC, but I'm sure it's not Reala.

 

I think I'll be in a bad mood for a while, now. Is Kodak going to take away Verichrome Pan soon, too?