Bronica RF645

V

Vince Brant

Guest
Am I the only person in the world !!!!! who owns a Bronica RF 645?
Have never met or heard of anybody owning one, apart from myself......am I now to be banished from this forum for letting my secret out.....
 
I'll tell you what - let me take the load of your sholders....send it to me! ;-) No seriously, from what I've heard it's a great camera. I wish I had one.

Got any pics ?

Cheers,

Meakin
 
At last a believer!!!!.....Just getting the scannner out now to send you some pics.
I have been trying to post them to the gallery over the last few days but unfortunately have not been succesful ( anybody out there have any clues? it doesnt appear to recognise my password)

I have had a Bronny RF for just over a year now and absoloutely love it. Up until the RF purchase I have used a Noblex Pro , for the last 8 years but thought I would try something diferent and then the RF came my way .

Cheers
Vince.
 
Vince Brant said:
Am I the only person in the world !!!!! who owns a Bronica RF 645?
Have never met or heard of anybody owning one, apart from myself......am I now to be banished from this forum for letting my secret out.....
Click to expand...

Re your question: The short answer is yes, the long one is Yeeesssss! - But seriously, all the MF RF cameras look amazing and for such a 'niche' product, show up very often in the photo magazines I read, mainly with travel photogs. If it were not for the hassle of finding someone to do the processing and either using a flatbed scanner or mortgaging most of my village for a MF film scanner, I would be very tempted.

David
 
Relax Vince, I bought one about two months ago and liked it so much I bought the two additional lenses. I've put about four rolls of 400TX through it, some XP2 shot at 320 which I think looked excellent. I just shot a couple of rolls of color neg film during a trip to Canberra and Sydney but haven't had them processed yet.

It's my first MF camera. I bought my first RF camera about a year ago after three decades of Nikon. I am having a lot of fun with this stuff.

Lou
 
Thanks David........I know the feeling.....I did have to mortgage the village!!!!
making one villager very unhappy....the wife.

Vince
 
Hi Vince and Lou! :) I think Doug here has a Bronica RF. He's on the west coast so I'm sure he'll chime in soon!
 
Yer right, Peter! I've had mine a couple years and love it. I also use a Fuji GA645Wi which I tend to prefer for 45mm shots since the Bronica's internal viewfinder doesn't have framelines for that focal length. My first 120/220 RF cam was a Fuji GS645S (60mm lens) that turned out to be broken, but I've been into MF since 1976 with Pentax 6x7 gear.

Vince and Lou, welcome to the rich (in several respects!) world of the MF RF! You are not alone. :D You'll find some of my Bronica shots in the RFF Gallery and one below. As to the budget, this stuff is pricier than some gear, but the village exchequer should be mollified to learn it's a whole lot less than a Leica setup!

I took both the Bronica and wide Fuji with me to Hawaii in late November. I had fast film in the Fuji and slower film in the Bronica, both color neg, but I think I ended up shooting the Fuji more. I'm still looking over the scans for anything worthwhile. I'm lucky I guess that there's a local lab with excellent processing for most all film sizes. They even do prints from 110-size negs, but no scans, and the scans from 35mm half-frame are ganged two images to one scan file. They offer full services for 120/220 film at least up to 6x9. I'm not sure how they handle 6x12 or longer though.

I ask for scans instead of prints, and I prefer to cut the neg strips myself. The scans from 6x4.5 are about 2700x2000 pixels, which I edit and size down for online posting. I often want 5x7 prints of selected images to give to my "victims"... For these I edit full-size scans for Levels, Balance, rotation, and cropping, then take them on a CF card to the kiosk at the local lab where they're uploaded to the main lab's computers. The prints are brought in the next day for pickup, while my negs stayed snuggled safely at home in their PrintFile pages! This seems rather nice service for such a rural county and a town of about 15000.
 
Thats great news guys!
I am currently trying to get some pictures up onto the forum.....and have just noticed the time :eek: ...late for work again...very late....will get back on line tonight or sooner if I dont have a job!!!
CYA
Vince
 
Hi Doug,

Nice shots, thanks for sharing. Do you have the polariser kit for the Bronica?

I haven't tried getting the lab to scan my negs and I don't have any software to manipulate the scans. The description of your process was helpful.

I've set up a darkroom again after lugging all the gear around for the last twenty-five years so I develop my own B&W(Tri-X in ID11).

Thanks again,

Lou
 
Hi Lou-- I don't have the polarizer kit, nor the flash unit either. There are times they'd be useful, but not too often. Considering the Bronica RF stuff is out of production, it might be good to pick up what could conceivably be useful while it's still available new. I hear Bronica is now out of the 100mm lenses. What lenses do you guys mostly use?

As to scan-editing software... I use a Mac, and edit mostly with a Mac-only shareware item from Lemke Software in Germany called GraphicConverter. I think it originally was a simple converter from one graphic file format to another, but over the years it's grown some nice editing features which are now extensive enough to overshadow the original functions. There may well be something similar available for Windows at modest cost. GC doesn't have a lot of Photoshop's handy features but does a good job somewhat beyond the basics.

I usually start by straigtening any obvious camera tilt, and with cropping. Then a squint at the histogram in the Levels control to get rid of any unused dark/light tones at each end. Then to brightness/contrast controls for a tweak of color balance, brightness, and saturation. I'll then scale the image to the size and 72 dpi resolution I need; usually to get the width below 512 pixels so it'll appear in the discussion threads on Photo.net. I may sometimes sharpen edges at this point, then add a black border, and save a copy (so as not to overwrite the original scan) with the jpg compression set to keep filesize below 100k. If I know I'll want a print, I'll save a copy at full resolution to a different folder before scaling.
 
Hi guys,
Its very refreshing (and reasuring ) to hear from other Rf645 owners.As I said before,I have owned my one now for just over a year and havent looked back.I purchased the camera as the basic kit ,with the 65mm lens and have since got the 100mm and just only last week I managed to find a second hand 45mm for a very resonable price (including the external viewfinder) which I hope to pickup early next week. any comments on this lens would be most appreciated.

I shoot primarily black and white....developing my own films,mainly Delta,FP4 etc and will either "wet" (old Durst 138s CLS 300 large format enlarger and M605)process or "dry" also via a Mac,scanning done on a Canon flatbed final prints made on an Epson R800 (results from this little printer are truly amazing,better than my 2100)


With using a Noblex Pro rotational lens camera for the last 8 years I didnt know what to expect from the 645...not knowing anybody who had one but have found the camera to be very rewarding.

The camera itself I have found reasonably small and not too heavy to have with you at all times.The viewfinder appears to be quite bright and crisp as apposed to other range finders I have tried making focussing a pure joy (havent done a lot of that over the past few years with a Noblex and also have to admit I did leave the lens cap on quite a few times at first!!! to my horror when I developed the films,all those frames what a waste)

The lenses are of outstanding quality.At first I was a bit optamistic of the slow f/4 but have not had any real problems as yet.One niggly very ,very small quirk I have found is the having to take off the lens shade to remove (if I remember!) the lens cap on the 65mm and I guess you are going to tell me thats what you have to do with the 45 aswell?

All in all I couldnt realy fault the camera and have not found its vertical orientation a hinderence either, which most people suggest when showing them.
Best of all though is the little" moanining " sound you get when pressing the shutter release? now youre going to tell me I have fault with the camera....it doesnt happen with yours......ooooops

Cheers Vince
 
Thanks Doug, I think it might be a while before I get to scan and edit my negs but I am certainly interested in the process.

Yes, I am thinking I might get the flash unit and the polariser kit. B & H has them used at the moment. Since I've only had the camera a couple of months I've used the 65 the most and shot a roll with the 45 last week which is drying in the darkroom and yes Vince, the lens cap/shade routine is the same on the 45. I haven't done any shots with the 100 yet but I thought the shade for it a disappoinment.

I am very happy with the camera having bought it sight unseen. I think it's a high quality package and a real bargain for the price.

Thanks again for your comments guys.

Lou
 
Hi Vince -- The 45mm lens seems fine to me, as good as the excellent Fuji 45mm. I really wish the camera viewfinder were wide enough to show parallax-corrected framelines for this lens, which I use a lot.

I agree the RF645 is not too large to pack around daily; smaller actually than some of the big motor-driven 35mm SLRs! Indeed I recall comparing its dimensions to that of my Leica M2 fitted with a 35 Summicron with lens hood. The Bronica was no larger except in height, and if I could fit the Leicavit trigger winder on the M2 it would then be the same size!

I don't use the lens cap on the 45 & 65 lenses, just a UV filter under the hood. I do usually have the cap on the 100mm since its use is easy with the hood. But I seldom use the 100. I did go for a walk along the beach a couple months ago just with the 100mm, mentally switching my attention to seeing pics in that angle of view. (Sample below showing its out-of-focus look anchored by a pair of red panties left on the beach...)

The vertical orientation of the image in the camera is typical for a "half-frame", which the 6x4.5 is compared to the "full frame" 6x9cm. Half-frame 35 (24x18mm) had the same issue. It used to be pretty popular, but I don't recall hearing the same complaints then! I seem to take as many vertical shots as horizontal regardless of the film orientation, so it really doesn't matter to me either way; the camera has to be turned for some shots.

Oh, and the "moaning" sound comes AFTER the shutter is released, as the shutter is electrically recocked. I think of it as a "click, wheeze". :) Some people mistook it as the shutter releasing and were annoyed at the apparent delay.
 
G'Day Lou,Doug

Doug do you use the external viewfinder on your 45,from what I can gather it attaches to the flash hot shoe? I pick my 45 up on Thursday.

Doug your shots on the members gallery are truly inspiring ,very nice,makes me want to get out and use the 645 much more now. Lou got any pics?

I have attached a few B+W frames below...all were scanned via my flatbed,orignaly @ 3200 dpi,resized,levels adjusted a fraction and cropped slightly,small amount of USM etc...via photoshop CS. saved as low res jpegs. I recently sold these as framed prints to buyers over the net who wanted to view prior to purchasing,hence the watermarking.

All shot on Delta 400 with the 65mm

Cheers Vince
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug, especialy love the shots..."Beach Critters","wheels" very cool...I am a great fan of B+W's

Vince
 
Yes, the 45mm lens's external viewfinder fits in the accessory shoe. Nice big bright viewfinder. Thanks for your comments on my gallery stuff!

Vince, those are some beautiful shots! Good catch of the bird; great timing to achieve the composition. They all seem to have a good sense of depth, dimensionality... But you might want to scale them down for display in the forum. I could see only a small part of the image at once, needing to scroll around to see other parts. I was wondering what the concentric circles were... Until I saved each image to my computer and opened them at smaller scale! About 600x800 pixels should be plenty big enough, though due to requirements for posting in threads on Photo.net, most of mine are sized no wider than 511 pixels and filesize under 100k. And at 600x800 or less, they can't be printed at any reasonable size with acceptable quality, so less need for the copyright watermark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom