john_sparks1

I also have the 28-75 and 24-105 lenses and a 7D (don't have the kit lens). In my case, the 24-105 is sharper than the 28-75 at wider settings (28mm to about 35mm). The 28-75 is sharper at the longer end. I think there are some lens to lens variations here.

I have a 7D. I can't remember the setting (you may have to look it up in the manual), but there is an option to allow the shutter to fire with no lens attached. You need to set this to work with oddball lenses like your 500mm.

I had the multiexposure lever break on my GS-1. I bought it a long time ago as a very well used camera so I attributed it to fatigue. I don't use this lever much and I can still move the control with what is left of the lever so I never bothered to get it repaired. The camera has been pretty reliable otherwise.

I regularly use a Bronica GS-1 handheld. I find that it works well that way. I get consistantly usable negatives at 1/60 with a 110mm lens and sometimes get away with 1/30. I can get away with 1/30 better with the 65mm. I have a AE metered prism, I don't think it would be very usable with the waistlevel unless you only make horizontal negatives. I've read many who recommend using the speed grip with the GS-1 for handheld use, but I don't recommend it unless you are using flash. I have a speed grip and took some handheld shots of a resolution chart with and without the grip. I found the shots without the grip consistantly sharper than the speed grip shots. My theory is that the grip acts like a lever and amplifies movements because your hand is further from the center of the lens.

 

Before I bought the Bronica, I borrowed an RB-67. I found it almost impossible to use handheld because the rack and pinion focusing made me have to support the entire weight of the camera with one hand to allow focusing with the other. The RB also weighs a lot more than the Bronica. I have known 2 photographers who regularly used an RB handheld with good results, but I'd choose something else.

 

I have never tried a Pentax 6x7. I do have a friend who used one for many years (he has recently switched to a Mamiya 7). He used it almost exclusively handheld. He only used the 105mm lens and said he tried to keep the shutter speed at 1/125 or above. I have seen lots of his 11x14 and 16x20 prints that were plenty sharp enough from handheld negatives. He did complain about the Pentax being hard to load film, but seemed to like it otherwise.

 

Since the fastest Pentax lens is about a stop faster than the fastest GS-1 lens and the GS-1 seems to be handholdable about a stop slower than the Pentax, I think they are equally usable handheld. The extra depth of field from being stopped down more may be more generally useful.

I bought a Hasselblad just to use this lens (well mine is the "F" version). I later bought a F 150/2.8, but only used it a couple of times and could easily do without it (anyone want to buy one?). I have no other Hasselblad equipment and won't buy any. I'm not a fan of Hasselblad ergonomics (I used them extensitively at a studio where I used to work), but am willing to put up with it to use this lens. I don't think I've ever stopped it down more that about f/5.6. Low light and limited depth of field are what this lens is about. I much prefer using my Bronica GS-1 where a more normal sharp image is required.

I own a Hasselblad and a Bronica GS-1 (I wanted a lens I could get for a Hasselblad that wasn't available for the Bronica). Although the build quality of the Hasselblad is definately better and the camera feels more solid, I much prefer the ergonomics of the Bronica.

 

I really like having a coupled meter (something you can't get in a Hasselblad unless you can afford a 203 or 205). The Bronica backs are easier to load quickly and you can't forget to advance to the first frame (you must do this with the winding lever on the back on a Hasselblad instead of the main lever, you will start shooting on the paper backing instead of the film if you forget, I lost most of a series of really good photographs because of this). It's a little easier to change backs quickly on the Hasselblad and I like the holder for the darkslide. I like the ratcheting design of the Bronica winding lever, the Hasselblad winding lever with it's fixed position hits my hand in an awkard spot. More than once, I have moved the shutter speed lever without knowing it on the Hasselblad while focusing or changing apertures, something I've never done on the Bronica for all that the shutter speed dial is a bit cheezy. I have also changed lenses on the Hasselbald and forgotten to set shutter speeds, something you can't do on the Bronica (of course you have to set apertures in both cases anyway). I like having the shutter electronicly controlled by the camera so that I get consistant exposures when I change lenses (I once worked in a studio where the shutters on different Hasselblad lenses were more than a stop different though this was 20 years ago and the lenses were old and well used, more modern shutters with less use shouldn't have this problem). You do have to remember to turn on the Bronica before you can fire the shutter.

 

I'm sure that some of the ergonomic problems I have with the Hasselblad result from switching back and forth between the two cameras and would go away if I used the Hasselblad exclusively. I do find it easier to switch from the Hasselblad to the Bronica than the other way around.

 

The images from the lenses are somewhat different (the Hasselblad lenses seem to be a bit contrastier), but I couldn't say one is better than the other. If anything, I prefer the smoother look from the Bronica lenses, the Hasselbald lenses can sometimes be a little harsh. I could easily see someone prefering it the other way and in some situations so do I. The differences are small in any case. No one looking at your photographs will think "this photograph would be good if you had only used a different brand of lens"

 

All cameras have good points and bad points. You can switch from one camera to another and feel more or less comfortable. There is something to be said for this as you will use a camera more if you like using it. If you are expecting the Hasselblad to be an improvement in all cases, you will be dissapointed. If you are expecting the differences to be worth the expense, you will probably also be dissapointed.

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.

Dante, which rangefinder do you find easier to focus, the contrastier II or the brighter III (or does it depend on something like light level)?

 

Any comments on the lenses, especially compared to the G690BL (I've read and enjoyed your review on your web site)?

I have a GS-1 and have used an RB-67. Besides the weight difference, the biggest problem for me handholding an RB (or RZ) is the rack and pinion focusing. When focusing the camera, I basicly had to support almost all the weight of the camera with one hand so I could turn the focus knob with the other. With the GS-1, I can easily hold the camera with both hands (left hand under the lens) and still turn the focus ring to focus. I have a friend who often uses an RB handheld and gets very good results, but I personally find the Bronica much easier to hold.

 

Unlike some of the other posters, I actually find the GS-1 much easier to hand hold without the speed grip and in some side-by-side testing where I photographed a resolution chart with and without the grip at various shutter speeds, I consistantly got sharper results without the grip.

I would shoot a roll around the house at 1600 and just pick a time to develop it. Keep repeating with development time adjustments until the negatives look good, maybe even make some test prints to be sure. Only then would I develop irreplacable wedding photos.

The only thing I've found that it does really well is to develop Delta 3200 as a normal film with an EI of about 1000-1600 with normal (i.e. not flat) highlights. I couldn't find a good developer for Delta that didn't leave the highlights looking dull and flat until I tried Tmax (actually I tried Tmax RS). I think Delta 3200 grain is a little finer Ilford's speed enhancing developers (DD-X and Microphen) and speed seems about the same.

 

I've never really used Delta 3200 at 3200 or above. At higher speeds, Tmax might be too contrasty and something else might be better, but to get normal looking negatives with good shadow detail from Delta 3200, Tmax is a good choice.

This really sucks!

 

When I bought my last HP5+ in 220, B&H still listed it, but didn't have any available. I was able to get it from Calumet. I just checked Calumet's web site and they don't list any 220 Ilford film. They don't even list TXP 220 which I hope is still available (B&H still lists it as available). They only list PXP and Portra B&W in 220. This really screws up my standard working methods.

>>PS was it suprising to anyone else that Ilford stopped making 220 B&W film altogether? Is Kodak far behind?

 

Has Ilford really stopped making 220 film? I haven't seen this announced anywhere before. Can you give a reference? I didn't have a problem getting a bunch of 220 film this summer.

I find Microphen and DD-X to give identical results. They are very similar developers. I've seen articles in magazines where DD-X is called "liquid Microphen". Of course, the development times are a bit different, but the negatives look the same to me.

 

For a long time, I kept trying Delta 3200 120 in Microphen or DD-X and was never really happy with it. I often want a 120 film that is faster than 400, but still looks like a normal film (I'm willing to accept a bit more grain). I rated it in the 1000 to 1600 range and the highlights always looked really muddy and flat and I almost never liked the results).

 

I recently developed one roll in T-max RS developer and was much, much happier with the results. Grain was a little finer, highlights had more contrast (i.e. normal contrast) and speed looked to be about the same. I haven't used this combo enough to see if this works as well in other conditions, but that would be my recommendation.

> So, there's no quiet SLR MF even though it does not use motor? I'm guessing Mamiya 7 is quiet since it's rangefinder.

 

Bronica SLR are fairly quiet for a MF SLR (no motor, well damped mirror and leaf shutter). I think they are quieter than a Hasselblad, but I haven't compared them side by side. Mamiya RB/RZ have a larger mirror are a little louder as I recall. Most other MF SLRs have either build in motors like the Rollei 6000 or have focal plane shutters or both so are louder.

 

The Mamiya 7 is almost silent. The leaf shutter is much quieter than the focal plane shutter in a Leica M. Most TLR's are similar to the Mamiya 7 in noise level.

I don't have any examples except in my head. I can approach this with Neopan 1600 shot about 800-1000 indoors in 35mm. This is a short toe film and underexposed maybe 1/2 stop from its real speed. However, I want to use 120 film (unfortunately Neopan 1600 isn't available in 120) and I want to create this effect outdoors in daylight (I know the indoor lighting is a large part of the effect I'm getting, I just want a similar look but more intense under more lighting conditions if I can). When I've tried underexposing film in daylight, the prints just look underexposed, not the rich shadows I'm going for.

 

Maybe I can describe it better. I want clean and contrasty highlights, midtones a little darker than normal but still looking fairly normal and shadows deep and rich but with reduced detail. Not solid black but with hints of texture showing. Compressed highlights doesn't sound like what I want.

 

Has anyone compared curves of Neopan 400 and 1600? Do they have similar curve shapes?

I have an idea in my head for some photographs that show reduced

information in the shadow areas. I don't know yet if the look I want

will come from using a long toe film (i.e. reduced contrast in the

shadows) or by using a short toe film and pusing slightly (i.e. high

contrast in the darker tones quickly falling to black). I will be

doing some experiments, but want to narrow the search a bit. I will

be using 120 film, so suggestions need to be available in 120 (or

220).

 

I know that TXP has a very long toe, are there other long toe films?

What about votes for the shortest toe film available? I think the

look I want needs high highlight contrast so points taken off for a

noticable shoulder, extra points for increased contrast in the

highlights.

I don't own a 7II, but borrowed one for a few days. I haven't compared it to the 7.

 

I'm somewhat colorblind and don't see red very well. I find the shutter speed lights of the 7II to be almost impossible to see outside in bright light. I can see them pretty easily indoors. I have similar problems with other cameras that use red LED's, but most put the LED's in front of a black background which helps a lot. The floating numbers of the Mamiya are very difficult for me.

I have two Horseman 6x9 backs. One is the current style and one is an older one. They are basicly the same style, reverse curl similar to a Hasselblad back, but they bigger and the turns are bigger radius. This is especially true of the older back. It has much larger rollers made from a softer material. It seems to keep the film flatter. As a test, I once put some film in each of the backs, shot a few frames then let them sit for several days before finishing the rolls. I couldn't see any sign of a problem with the old back, but the new back has a little area of unsharpness on the second frame where the roller was. With only 8 exposures per roll, that was the only time I've ever left film in a back over night. I've never seen a problem with film sitting in either back for a few hours (although I only use the new back when I really need a second back which is very rare). As someone else suggested, I've thought about getting a Toyo back, it's supposed to be almost straight through.

I had about given up on Delta 3200 until I tried it in Tmax RS developer. The grain is much smaller than DD-X or Microphen (the most commonly recommended developers fro Delta 3200) and the highlights have more contrast. I had previously found Delta 3200 to have dull, lifeless highlights. I exposed it at E.I. 1600.

Besides the films mentioned above, Kodak Plus-x is also available in 220. Either Plus-x or FP4+ is going to be your best bet. I actually find FP4+ a little sharper than Delta 100 with only slightly larger grain. FP4+ would be my choice for a slow speed 220 film. Portra B&W might actually be the finest grain 220 film, but FP4+ is sharper.

I have a Domke f3x (bought it last year and I saw some at a local dealer last week, so I know they still exist). It is fairly compact for a camera bag, but you can easily cram in more stuff than you want to carry. Your Mamiya 6 system will easily fit, but may still be a bigger bag than you want. It will hold my Bronica GS-1 with an extra lens and back or a 35mm system with 5 lenses and still has room for lots of film and stuff. I really like mine.

Does anyone have any examples on the web of photographs made with the

Fuji 90mm lens wide open? I've been thinking about getting a medium

format rangefinder and have been able to try both the Mamiya and

Bronica cameras, but haven't been able to try the Fuji (I have

handled one briefly). I would prefer 6x9 to the smaller negatives of

the other cameras and I can live with the other limitations of the

Fuji. I like to work with limited depth of field, but everything

I've been able to read about the Fuji lens only talks about how great

it is at f/8 or f/11. Anyone use it very much wide open?

I was at PMA last year when this lens was introduced. I asked the Bronica people about it. They said that the 135mm frameline is replaced by the one for the 100mm. At that time, you send the camera to Bronica and they would replace it for free. I'm sure that Bronica has been shipping cameras with the 100mm frameline for a while. I don't know how you determine which frameline any given used camera (or even a new one that has been sitting on a dealers shelf for a long time) will have.

Take a look at:

 

<a href=http://www.editorialphoto.com/cityguides/cities/denver.html> Editorial Photo guide to Denver</A>