Bronica RF

[Domenico]

Hello everybody,

is there anyone so kind to talk me about the Bronica 645 RF? I tried one this morning for few minutes and I can say that it's lightweight, the viewfinder is good, the focus is quite easy, the feel in my hand was very good and, generally speaking, it was wonderful.

But the image quality?
Good? 🙂 Or maybe...stunning? 😀

Thanks,
Domenico

 

[foto_fool]

Hi Domenico: Saw your thread yesterday re: whether to get a G2 or a MF. First thing that I thought of for you was the Bronica. One of our members in Australia (Keith) has one and speaks highly of it.

I have handled the Bronica and thought the same things as you. But I don't shoot photos for magazine covers so 645 makes little sense for me. I have a G1 and 21/45/90mm lenses which I use a lot and love for the image quality as well as for the flexibility of the camera system. The price in these is very good right now as well. You could get a G1 and 45/2 Planar for about half the cost of a new ZM 50/2 Planar.

I do shoot MF (Mamiya C3 and Fuji GW690III) but the entire workflow from subject to finished product is very different than my 35mm workflow. The two just aren't interchangeable or even directly comparable. For me, MF work takes more planning and time - consequently I shoot about 95%-98% as 35mm.

What you pick should depend on what you really need to do with it.

BTW - welcome to the forum. - John

 

[Domenico]

.

BTW - welcome to the forum. - John

Thanks 🙂

What I want is take very good pictures during my travels. I mainly take landscapes and street photography and this is the reason why I was looking at G2. The problem is I've been told the increase of quality is not so much compared to a good jap 35mm system (I use Pentax). This is the reason why I am now looking at a Bronica RF.

The point is I know exactly what kind of photography I like, but I have never compared Contax G prints with MF ones, so I don't know how much quality I am loosing... 😕

The pics I have seen these days in this forum add a lot of confusion... I've seen the pics of a member (I don't remember the name) taken with a G2 and they were absolutely stunning... but that guy wrote that G2 cannot be compared with MF so I am pretty confused now...

By the way, now in Italy is very late, I'll think about these problems while sleeping.
Bye and thanks again.
Domenico

 

[FrankS]

Domenico, welcome! I have a Bronica RF645, and in traditional wet darkrom prints from 5x7 and larger, there is a very noticable increase in quality in these negs compared to my 35mm negs. (Leica, CV) Are you planning darkroom prints? If you plan to scan the negs for internet posting and/or inkjet printing, you'll need a scanner capable of MF. I don't have any experience comparing inkjet prints made from scanned 35mm negs vs scanned MF negs. If you plan just to post on the internet, then 35mm is fine, as the weak link in that chain is the resolution of the monitor display. The Bronica RF645 is a very easy to handle MF camera, but is still bigger than a 35mm RF like the Contax, and you are limited to a wide angle, a widish-normal lens, and very difficult to find and expensive mild telephoto lens.

 

[RObert Budding]

It's a superb camera. But I decided to sell mine to fund my LF addiction. My 100mm lens is now in The Netherlands. And a friend here in Boston wants my 45mm. Now I just need to find a home for the body/65mm lens.

 

[Keith]

I think the image quality goes without saying ... 35mm will never hold a candle to a well exposed MF negative ... even the little, by comparrison, 6x4.5 that the Bronica produces. What did blow me away about the camera was it's ease of use ... I was expecting something a little unwieldy to be honest but the RF645 would be no harder to use than an M7 in any situation I can think of. The extra weight is there but the ergonomics of the camera are so good you don't really notice it ... it feels great in the hands! One major difference of course is the viewfinders natural portrait orientation.

My only dissapointment, and it's a biggy, is that I primarily bought the camera for portrait work and was hoping to pick up a 100mm lens somewhere along the way for a reasonable price ... fat chance I've discovered! 🙁 If the 100mm lens remains as difficult to get for a sensible price in the future as it appears to be now I will have to consider selling the camera and going to something else ... possibly a Hasselblad! 😱

 

[kuzano]

Two points to consider....

Two points to consider....

I use Fuji 645 cameras a lot. I have also shot a number of the 6X6 Bronica. I can unequivocally say one thing and suggest your consideration on another.

First. The 64 negative is 2.7 times bigger in area than 35mm. Also, I suggest that there are few 35mm lenses that stand up in comparison to either Fuji, Bronica, or Mamiya optics. If you buy a Bronica 645RF, and you shoot equally as well as most 35mm cameras, you will be blown away by the results of medium formats smallest format.

Second, you mentioned that you shoot landscapes. The 645 format in both Fuji and Bronica 645RF configurations is a portrait style image capture. If you shoot mostly landscape style, you will always be holding the camera in a vertical (perhaps uncomfortable) position.

I solved this problem on my Fuji rangefinders that also shoot portrait, by building a handgrip that mounts to the tripod socked and holds the camera vertical for a landscape orientation. I rigged a trigger/cable release to trip the shutter. So, I have both orientations at my disposal.

It's an important consideration. If you prefer holding the camera in a landscape orientation, you should be looking at 645's like the Bronica ETRSi or Mamiya 645 component systems that have a removable back in which the film rolls vertically, instead of from side to side. I particularly like my solution, because I am not willing to give up the Fuji optics. I also shoot a big old G690 BL, which is 120 film also and a horizontaly (landscape) mode the way the camera is built.

Lastly, back on the first point, there is likely to be as much retention of the film emulsions in 120 roll film as there will be in 35mm film. And 2.7 times more film area is a HUGE advantage if your goal is to scan and blow up images. No way 35mm touches that difference. Based on Bronica optics, I seriously doubt the existence of any other makers glass that will touch the image frame size difference.

 

[AusDLK]

I have using a RF645 alternating all three lenses (45, 65, and 100mm) all this month for a daily project.

It is a great handling camera. My workhorse is normally an M7 with TA's Rapidwinder and Rapidgrip attached. This and the RF645 are essentially the same size and feel very similar.

The funny little whisper of the shutter is not quite as satisfying as the venerable M camera but it probably as silent or even more so.

I've got 12 rolls of Plus-X exposed with probably two more or so before the project is complete. When I get these developed I expect to be very, very satisfied with the image quality.

 

[Kevin]

Why don't you simply try a MF folder and see if you like the MF workflow first?
A fellow named Jürgen restores and sells all kinds of folders. Check out his site!

www.certo6.com

My Bessa II fits into my coat pocket and produces beautiful 6x9cm negs.

 

[RObert Budding]

. . . Second, you mentioned that you shoot landscapes. The 645 format in both Fuji and Bronica 645RF configurations is a portrait style image capture. If you shoot mostly landscape style, you will always be holding the camera in a vertical (perhaps uncomfortable) position. . .

You can buy an L-bracket from Really Right Stuff. very useful if you shoot landscapes using a tripod.

 

[sircarl]

Domenico,

I owned a G2 for several years, and now own a Bronica RF645. I also make my own prints in a darkroom. While my G2 prints were very good, my Bronica prints are (usually) noticeably better -- richer, sharper, with a smoother tonality. Yes, the RF645 is much bigger, the lens selection is smaller, and the vertical orientation may not work for you. But if you can overcome those hurdles, I'd go for it.

 

[summicron2020]

I am always amazed at how sharp the lenses are for my Bronica RF645. I have a folder of images from the RF645 on my Flickr page if you want to see some samples.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/summicron2020/sets/72157602945527474/

Karl

 

[skibeerr]

What would the chance be of Tamron making the 135 or 100 again?
From what I hear there is a market for them.

Wim

 

[summicron2020]

I would say "Nil."

 

[Domenico]

Thank you everybody for your opinions, indeed very helpul.

I have some other questions anyway.

Reading some reviews I noticed somebody was complaining about the meter that, it seems, underexposes in dim light. Read, for example, the review from photo.net:
http://photo.net/equipment/bronica/rf645

Other people were complaining about film transport problems.

Have you ever experienced similar problems on your camera?

The other so called "weaknesses" aren't troubling me too much instead. The lack of a medium tele photo lens, for example, (yes it's not a lack, but it seems they are rare and expensive) isn't boring me, as I ususally take few portraits.

The fact I would have only two lenses avaible is a godsend in my opionion as these are the only lenses I need. Moreover if there aren't other lenses available I hope I won't spend the nights with my eyes peeled dreaming on some super wide and super expensive lens that I'd probably seldom use. 😀 If I took a Mam 7, how can't I dream on the 43mm even if I know it would stay in the bag most of the times? I'm joking of course, Mam 7 is a great camera, only a bit too expensive for my pocket.

Taking landscapes holding the camera in vertical is something I'm sure I can learn to live it.

Well, it seems I have to check ebay for one of this camera as the shop in my town sell one for Euro 1.000 (more or less $ 1.482)!!! What a shame!

Thank you again and best regards,
Domenico

 

[kuzano]

Other people were complaining about film transport problems.
Domenico

You can hear about film transport problems on almost all MF cameras. It's usually not the camera. It's the lack of care people take in loading Medium Format film. A 35mm cartridge is easy since it won't unspool on you. Drop the cartridge in, place the leader, crank one frame, close the back and crank to frame 1.

With medium format, care must be taken to keep pressure on the roll once you open the tab. One finger must maintain pressure on the film roll, while the leader is inserted in the slot of the takeup spool. Then maintaining that pressure to keep the film roll from loosening, crank one frame on the spool, or until you see the start line on the medium format. If you do not retain pressure on the spool of film, the takeup spool will load loosely and the roll may jam.

It's a surmountable problem with practice, and if you get jammed up while your learning it, you may lose a roll or two, rather than force the mechanism.

Don't mean to scare you off on this, but many complainants simply won't learn the proper technique for loading 120 roll film. It's really easy, but they piss and moan about something being wrong with the cameras. I've used a lot of Fuji 645 and 690 cameras. The Fuji manuals are very specific about maintaining pressure on the film as it comes off the roll, until the door is closed. After losing a roll or two, I have not had a problem with loading 120 in any camera for years.

 

[sircarl]

Domenico,

I rarely use my RF645 in "low light situations," so can't comment on the meter's accuracy. But I'd agree with kuzano that if you take care in loading the film, using the technique he describes, you shouldn't have a problem (unless your camera is somehow defective, of course). You might want to check out the RF645 manual, which is available online at http://www.tamron.com/assets/pdfs/RF645.pdf

 

[Doug]

I have routinely used my RF645 for interior environmental portrature, often meaning the lens is wide open, and the shutter on the slow side even with ISO 800 film. Never have noticed any underexposure in these circumstances with either of two bodies.

But one thing to consider here is that "low light" often means incandescent light which is strong in red/yellow and deficient in blue. Meters (in general) tend to be more sensitive to red light than B&W film, Tri-X for instance, and this can result in underexposure. Ilford XP2 has more red-sensitivity so the effect is less but still present.

Agree with Kuzano's comments on tensioning the film in loading, to get a tight wrap on the takeup spool. The camera even has a brake built into the supply-side reel holder to add a bit of tension, but even more at the start is good to make sure, and does no harm. With my roll-film cameras, I rest my thumb lightly on the supply spool as I crank the film to the start arrows.

I have a Contax G2 and like it too... easy film loading, motor advance, and AF that works well most of the time. But the 645 negative is a big advantage, and it's a relief to see the RF patch line up and KNOW the focus is right. 🙂 The G2 has a small advantage in low light, and in closer focus.

I just returned from two weeks in the Caribbean with the G2, mostly using the 28 and 45mm lenses... which offer similar fields of view as the Bronica's 45 and 65mm.

 

[Michael P.]

I Tamron rep I spoke to on the phone told me that Tamron destroyed all their Bronica RF gear as a tax write off under Japanese law.

 

[RObert Budding]

I usually switch to 35mm for low light. Faster lenses and greater DOF allow me to use slower films than I would use for MF.