Bronica 645 users??

M

mfs

Guest
Do any of our distinguished members use a Bronica 645??
I was thinking about migrating into this format, and I wonder if anyone has first hand experience with this camera??
I have read about the problems with the 135 mm lens, but since I tend to shoot street, and landscape scenes, I do not think that the lack of a longer lens would be an issue. On the other hand, the camera is quite light, and portable so it would seem to be a reasonable choice.

I appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Martin
 
Have you considered the Mamiya 6 or 7 rangefinder cameras?
 
by most accounts this is a very good camera with excellent lenses.

i have not seen or held one, i don't think they are carried locally.
my concern would be the vertical film & finder, i think that would take some getting used to.
in truth, i have been spoiled by the square of my mamiya 6.

joe
 
Fascinating that this matter came up now. I have just had a Bronica 645 weekend to share.

Last Thursday I got a tickle re the B 645 and decided to indulge it. After reading several favorable reviews, I contacted by e-mail several of my knowledgeable correspondents who had hands-on experience. They returned positive opinions on the machine and its lenses. Then, as luck would have it, my local photo boutique had just taken in one in on trade, along with a tele lens. It was the only sample, to my knowledge, in town, and the first they had seen. So on Saturday, slightly impressed by the Kozmik Koincidence of it all, I got myself over to the shop to look it over, half convinced that I would probably wind up with it. I am well accustomed to the Mamiya 6, so naturally, a lot of my observations were based on comparisons to that outfit

After better than an hour of handling the camera, these are my subjective responses:

The camera fits well in the hand and controls are well placed for easy manipulation. It took me minutes to feel confident with the camera and its basic layout. It appears to be well made, a bit smaller and lighter than the Mamiya 6/7 and perhaps not quite as substantial. The viewfinder was bright and contrasty with a good RF patch, not far off the Mamiya 6 standard. I could easily live with it. However, there is no frame for the 45 mm WA, which is supplied with an accessory finder, and that has a lot of barrel distortion. Of the tele lens frame, more later. Lens interchangeability was far superior to the M6/7 because you don’t have to manually turn a key or work a sliding button to actuate the film curtain. That is done automatically in the B 645.

The meter does not seem to have the sensitivity to extraneous light that so often blitzes out the M 6 meter. The LED information panel on the viewfinder left was a little distracting, but with experience I am sure can be ignored. In addition to manual and aperture preferred auto exposure, there is also a shutter preferred and program setting. The shutter is not as quiet as the M 6/7, but not at all obtrusive. It has an odd sound, hard to describe, but sort of “wheeze/click.” The shutter release was slightly mushy, compared to the M 6.

My correspondents who have wrung out the camera tell me the lenses are spectacularly sharp (“transparencies jump off the light box”), and unlike the M 6, have a smooth bokeh. Of that I can only comment that no aspect of the M 6 lenses has ever bothered me, but this could be of interest to bokeh sniffers. A more serious matter concerns the available tele lens. When originally marketed, the B 645 was supposed to be offered with a 135 mm focal length lens. That didn’t work out because the rangefinder base would not allow the lens to be focused precisely. So a 100 mm lens was produced instead. This is not such a bad thing, but the viewfinder frame is for the 135, so composing with the 100 is sloppy, at best.

On balance, I think the camera and its lenses are entirely usable, despite the need for an PITA accessory WA finder and the slovenly 135 mm frame for the 100 mm lens. Considering that it is possible to purchase a new B 645 outfit for about the same price as a used M 6, the camera could be considered a good deal, as well. But it’s not for me.

After close to a half century of photography, I am hard-wired for square format in MF. I have no problem with elongated rectangles in 35 mm or view camera, but for reasons the subject of another “essay” I am a square guy when it comes to 120. I thought I could talk myself into 645, but in the end could not. I’ll stick to the Mamiya. Go for the Bronica, but only if you can try it out first. That’s the main thing I got out of this weekend.
 
Love that Bronica...

Love that Bronica...

Thanks, znapschatz; and interesting commentary on your impressions! I've had a Bronica RF645 since early this year, with all three lenses. It's still my most favored camera, taking over this roll from my long-loved Minolta CLE. These cameras have similarities in character. Compact, well-made, auto exposure, interchangeable lenses, flash integration, inconspicuous, with crisp contrasty RF spot.

The camera you saw, with the 135mm framelines, had not been modified for the 100mm lens, yet oddly was mismatched with a 100mm! The mod (free from Bronica) involving swapping out the frameline mask. My newer camera came with the 100mm frame to match the 100mm f/4.5 lens.

Robert White in the UK had a different solution, buying up all the surplused 135mm lenses and offering a precision matching service for customers. The main issue seems to be that the manufacturing tolerances in some cameras and lenses stacked up unfavorably to produce inaccurate focus wide open at short distances. Some were fine.

My 100mm lens has focus markings down to 5.9 feet, but can focus closer in an unmarked region to indicate less certainty of accurate focus. I might have preferred the Robert White solution... This whole focus issue has tarnished the reputation of the camera, perhaps unfairly, but Bronica made an error.

Others too have questioned the vertical finder, and I'm puzzled. Half-frame 35's also had vertical format "naturally" and I don't recall complaints then, and the 645 format has been around for many more decades. Anyway, I'm just as happy with this upright position as with the horizontal framing of my Pentax 67. Each must be turned for the other orientation, so what difference does it make? :) I have used several square-format cameras, and recognize the advantage of never having to choose orientation, and while I'm glad of the choice for those who do, somehow I've never really liked the square.

I came to the Bronica from a Fuji GS645S, the "Wide 60", not the folder. I had bought a dud, and was told it was infeasible to repair. I did later get it fixed, though. The Fuji is much lighter in weight, but the meter isn't as good, its shutter has a loud "clack" sound, and worst it's rangefinder spot is one of those dim and fuzzy ones. On the upside, its framelines shrink for closer distance as well as shift for parallax.

The Bronica has a lovely Leica-quality RF, and the shutter is nearly silent. That odd little buzzz-click sound at the end of the exposure is the electronic shutter recocking for the next shot.

If I had a gripe, it would be the exposure compensation dial on the back of the camera. Unlike a couple other controls, it has no lock button... convenient for fast use but unfortunately subject to inadvertent change.

And, yeah, I'd gripe about the lack of 45mm framelines. I'm sure they could have done it! Actually, I've never used the external 45mm viewer, instead framing the wide-angle lens with the entire finder area outside the 65mm framelines.

What I like about both these 645's is that they're inconspicuous (if you can ignore that Fuji CLACK), and smaller/lighter than the big auto/motorized 35mm SLRs. Yet they offer excellent optics and relatively huge negatives. With its metal frame, the Bronica is heavier but faster and easier to use.

I've mostly been using the wider lenses, but here's one from the 100mm...
 
<<Others too have questioned the vertical finder, and I'm puzzled. Half-frame 35's also had vertical format "naturally" and I don't recall complaints then, and the 645 format has been around for many more decades. Anyway, I'm just as happy with this upright position as with the horizontal framing of my Pentax 67. Each must be turned for the other orientation, so what difference does it make? :) I have used several square-format cameras, and recognize the advantage of never having to choose orientation, and while I'm glad of the choice for those who do, somehow I've never really liked the square. >>

Actually, as a once-upon-a-time half frame Olympus fan, I have no problem with the vertical frame. If anything, it's a plus for much of the hand-held photography I like to do. I'm glad you enjoy your 645 outfit, and considering what is likely to be available in RF/MF, it is entirely possible that I might have to revisit the Bronica at some time in the future. All my life it has seemed that every time a manufacturer has offered a machine that otherwise I find perfect, there is one glaring deviation that must be tolerated or not. There is no reason the Bronica should be an exception (sigh).
 
Thank you all for your comments. I really appreciate the first hand info.
It is much better than third party comments.
Martin
 
znapschatz: That one remaining glaring deviation being the lack of built-in 45mm framelines? It certainly is unfortunate, mitigated if only the separate finder had less barrel distortion. It does, on the plus side, have a rubber eyecup, a secure clamp for the foot, centering crosshairs, and continuously variable diopter correction.

I've not had personal experience with the Mamiya 6/7 systems... Am I right in recalling that the excellent 43mm lens requires a separate finder? There are framelines for the 50?

This one's with the Bronica 45mm...
 
Nice pic. I see you carry your camera everywhere, like me.

Actually, the "glaring deviation " to which I refer is that the camera is 645 format, which I recognize is mostly a matter of personal preference. Every camera will have minor "problem" areas, either in feature design or mix. That I expect and don't really think much about. The need for an accessory finder falls into that category, and using the whole VF frame seems a good workaround.

Most cameras are okay or can be accomodated to. Some are especially reliable, have good lenses etc., but few arouse my passions. Sometimes, though, something comes on the market that makes my heart leap. Those are the ones that always contain some kind of poison pill.

An example of "glaring deviations" (sorry I used that phrase, but I'll stick with it for now) is the Kodak Signet, a camera I lusted for back in the 1950s. It was small, light, ergonomically well designed, exceptional for a Kodak camera, and had a rugged cast aluminum body. The lens was a superb Ektar, easily the equal of any premium Japanese or German lens of its day, a silky smooth film advance, an excellent rangefinder and all this at an affordable price. OTOH, the shutter was a cheesy, poorly made 2 blade design with speeds from 1/25 to 1/300th sec., had to be cocked seperately from the film advance and would not synchronize with electronic flash (bulbs only). That was the first of the deal-breakers I would encounter for the next multiple decades.

Re the Mamiya 6: yes, all frames for available lenses are in the view finder beautiful and bright. All the camera's quirks are (IMHO) minor. My problems with it have been two-fold. First, when it came out, it was my dream camera, only better. However, the price was way beyond my reach. I couldn't justify $5000 for a complete outfit. Now, it is available used for far less, within my capabilities to afford, but the camera has been discontinued and some parts are already no longer available. There is no way to know if/when the camera is going to suddenly lose all use and exchange value, I bought one, anyway, but now I have that nagging thought at the back of my mind. So it seems my luck holds.
 
I have owned/used both Mamiya 7II and Bronica RF645 - resulting in my selling the Mamiya and keeping/using the Bronica.

Biggest reason - I could see no difference in the end results - both produced very nice negatives.

The Bronica had a lot of positives for my style of working - mostly verticle handheld while outdoors, it is smaller and lighter when including the size and weights of the lens and body, there is more information in finder and easier to use controls, and the cost is a lot less - quite a lot less!!

I have the 45, 65, & 100mm - body & flash. Really like the flash for a little extra fill when doing portraits in the shade.

For anyone thinking of going into a medium rangefinder - I would suggest trying the Bronica and the Mamiya to see which one fits your needs better. For me it was the Bronica.
 
I have the Bronica 645 RF and 45 and 65 mm lenses. The camera is light, easy to hold, has easy to read and use controls, and I favor the vertical format. The lenses are amazingly sharp. The shutter sound is unusual, but it's quiet. Although I can't compare it to the Mamiya RFs, I can say it is a worthwhile investment and a darn good camera. My only complaint is the scarcity of the 100 and 135 mm lenses.
 
You mention that you will mostly be shooting landscapes. The vertically oriented frame and hence this camera may not be a good choice for you. A 6x7 format such as the Mamiya 7 may be better but there are negatives to this camera as well (namely the price of lenses). I suspect you've probably considered all this already though......



~Chad
 
Doug said:
Robert White in the UK had a different solution, buying up all the surplused 135mm lenses and offering a precision matching service for customers. The main issue seems to be that the manufacturing tolerances in some cameras and lenses stacked up unfavorably to produce inaccurate focus wide open at short distances. Some were fine.
Click to expand...

Just to correct a common misconception, many UK retailers offered the 135mm when it was available. It's intro2020, the UK distributors who took on the challenge and that offered a matching service. Robert White et al sent the equipment to them.

Stephan
 
Are RF645 prices going up, now? I just noticed yesterday that KEH is pricing the camera with 65mm lens at $1080. Just a few months ago, wasn't that kit going for more like $800 or $900?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom