Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm starting to feel like it would be very hard to get rid of the RF645 ... after putting a roll through it the other day I was reminded just how good it is and how compact it is. It seems a little fragile and erratic at times but in terms of usability it can't be faulted IMO.
But ... I don't recall seeing the 135mm lens for sale anywhere ... ever!
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Don't hold your breath on finding a 135mm lens for you RF645. I've never seen one for sale. Even the 100mm is hard to find.
Best of luck. I'd have kept my RF645 and 3 lenses had I had greater faith in the film transport.
Paul Roark
Member
I have been sitting on my Bronica RF645 outfit, with 135mm matched to the body, for some time and intend to sell the outfit. I think, however, that the body and 135 ought to be sold together since they were matched (needed to get accurate focusing) and are a bit rare.
This was my main outfit, used with Tech Pan film (will also be selling a load of that frozen film) for a number of years. In may respects it easily beats the Leica M9 I now use most.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I would at least try the Fuji GA645Zi for three or four rolls. I've only used it once but it struck me as an exceptional camera - very nice, compact, universal and quiet. Pretty much the only downside was the speed (but not the quality!) of the lens at the long end, and that one can work around and/or get used to.
I don't understand the argument that you can't check focus before getting back the roll - or rather I don't see how this is specific to autofocus cameras; if your rangefinder is miscalibrated or your Hasselblad focusing screen needs adjustment, you only see that after getting back the roll, too.
(Lastly, in addition get an A16 back or two for your Hasselblad outfit if you don't have one, for those studio-type situations where you want complete control.)
ChrisN
Striving
Keith, I recall you made some good portraits with the Hasselblad and the 150 Sonar lens. Square is really the best option for portraits anyway!
My suggestion would be to put the $$ you were considering spending into more film, and just accept the 12 exposures per roll, and the superb performance of the Hasselblad kit.
My suggestion would be to put the $$ you were considering spending into more film, and just accept the 12 exposures per roll, and the superb performance of the Hasselblad kit.
mathomas
Well-known
I'll second (third?) the recommendation of the GA645Zi. Great camera. I have more prints on the wall from that camera than any other I own.
rbelyell
Well-known
just a tad OT, but i am curious as to the relative quality of smaller frame 645 vs 35mm vs other larger MF formats, eg 6x6&6x9? ive read, perhaps incorrectly, that one does not receive the kind of qualitative benefit over 35mm from 645 as one gets from 6x6 or 6x9... true/not true?
tony
tony
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
645 is roughly 2.5 times the size of 35mm, and the qualitative benefit is definitely there!
If you don't print square, then 6x6 is in fact the same size as 645.
6x9 is two times the size of 645, so another qualitative jump here, although not as big as from 35mm to 645.
Cheers!
Abbazz
rbelyell
Well-known
thank you abbazz! would this 'quality' jump over standard 35mm also apply to say pano mode of the xpan?
tony
tony
Matus
Well-known
Sounds a bit off-topic here, but xpan is just 'stretched' (or imagine stitched 2 frames) of 35mm format.
brian steinberger
Established
Keith, I recall you made some good portraits with the Hasselblad and the 150 Sonar lens. Square is really the best option for portraits anyway!
My suggestion would be to put the $$ you were considering spending into more film, and just accept the 12 exposures per roll, and the superb performance of the Hasselblad kit.
I cannot argue with this logic. I recently bought a Hasselblad to do some portraiture and still lifes, things I couldn't with my RF's. And although rangefinders are absolutely my thing, when my Mamiya 6's and RF645's die, I know I will always be able to count on that Hassy until the day I die. I will continue to build that kit up over the years.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
It doesn't really make sense to compare a panoramic negative to a normal one because of the wildly different formats of the print. But if you compare, say, an Xpan panoramic negative to a crop of the same format from a normal 35mm negative, the quality difference is there.
ath
Well-known
I always look at this this way:
A 42*58cm print from 645 will be as grainfree / have the same tonality / sharpness as a 24*36cm print from 35mm or a 58*58cm print from 6x6 and so on.
Since I like to crop to 4:3 I get the same quality from a 42*56cm print as I get from a 24*32cm print from 35mm.
Obviously this does not include other parameters like lens and technique.