Is there a logical replacement for the Bronica RF645?

[Keith]

I can only support Dexter's assessment of the Mamiya 6 75mm lens bokeh. I would only add nearly unusable meter with the 150 lens (which has a very nice boken in contrast to 75) as the Mamiya 6 meters area larger that the coverage of the 50 lens.

I would say - if you like the RF645 - hang on it and be patient to get the 135 lens - and sell the 100. As both of these are rare you will not loose much cash in the proces.

I am actually thinking of the RF to replace my Mamiya 6 (I have all 3 lenses) - I just got a Minolta Autocord for 6x6 (I love this format and Tessar lenses).

To get an idea of how much bigger the camera gets once you go from MF to SLR in 645 format look HERE (side note - I would LOVE to get my hands on both RF645 and Contax 645)

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]

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!

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]

... RF645 ...135mm lens that was made to match these framelines seems to be virtually unobtainable these days.

It's a truly great camera ...

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]

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!

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]

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. 🙂

 

[mathomas]

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]

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

 

[Abbazz]

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

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]

thank you abbazz! would this 'quality' jump over standard 35mm also apply to say pano mode of the xpan?
tony

 

[Matus]

thank you abbazz! would this 'quality' jump over standard 35mm also apply to say pano mode of the xpan?
tony

Sounds a bit off-topic here, but xpan is just 'stretched' (or imagine stitched 2 frames) of 35mm format.

 

[brian steinberger]

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]

thank you abbazz! would this 'quality' jump over standard 35mm also apply to say pano mode of the xpan?

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]

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

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.