Mamiya 645 vs Bronica ETR-system
Douglas J. Bateman
Have the urge to move from 35mm to medium format and have
finally decided on 6x4.5 as the best choice for me. Now the
question is: which system?
On a purely emotional, totally non-rational basis, I have
eliminated the Pentax 645 from my consideration. (Sorry
all you Pentax afficcianados--please don't flame me cause
I already admit this was a non-rational decision.)
Am leaning strongly towards a used Bronica, most likely an
ETRS or ETR; however, a used Mamiya 645 would appear to fit
better into my budget.
One question I have about Mamiya was raised by a sales person
who "explained" to me that the problem with used Mamiyas is that
ther are so many versions (M645, M645J, M645-1000s, M645 Super)
and they are not all that compatible with one another. I have
reason to question his creditability, but this does cause me
concern--especially since I do not know the M645 timeline nor
the difference in features in the above.
Can someone:
a. Confirm or deny compatability issues among the various M645
models.
b. Explain the timeline to me so that I know which is older
than what.
c. (Briefly) note the differences among the M645 models.
d. Give me an opinion (please let's not start a flaming thread)
about Bronica vs Mamiya.
I'm going to a camera show this weekend and I'm willing to bet that
I walk away from there with something! I'd sure like to be a little
more knowledgable going in, though.
If you'd prefer, you can email a reply directly to me and if I get
enough reponses to justify the effort, I'll post a summary to this
newsgroup.
Thanks in advance.
Doug Bateman
dbat...@unt.edu
Wilt W
Doug,
<< a. Confirm or deny compatability issues among the various M645
models. b. Explain the timeline to me so that I know which is older
than what. >>
It's true that the older M645, M645J and M645 1000S do not share all
the same accessories as the newer M645 Super and most recent M645 Pro. As
I recall, the key areas of non-interchangeability happen to be in the
finders and in the backs.
<< c. (Briefly) note the differences among the M645 models. >>
Think of the M645, M645J and M645 1000s as the "old" design. Think of
the M645 Super and Pro as the "new" design; think of the Pro as a slightly
more rounded appearance and somewhat more ruggedized Super.
<< d. Give me an opinion (please let's not start a flaming thread)
about Bronica vs Mamiya.>>
The two cameras are both system cameras in terms of providing a
selection of film backs, finders, lenses, and accessories. The Mamiya
offers a wider selection of lenses.
The Bronica has all leaf-shutter lenses, which makes it the camera of
choice for anyone wanting to shoot 645 format with synchro-sun fill flash,
but which adds to the cost of each lens purchased. While the Mamiyas do
offer a few leaf shuttered lenses, they require you to use the motor
winder for most convenience, and use of the leaf shutter lenses loses the
AE feature of the metering prism.
The Bronica has the ability to do TTL auto flash, while the Mamiyas do
not. So again, Bronica is better in the flash usage department.
Both cameras have roughly equivalent AE metering prisms with both spot
and weighted averaging, but the Mamiya offers the automatic selection
between the two modes while the Bronica does not.
There are some other subtleties of usage between the cameras. But for
the most part it comes down to individual tastes and usage, much like the
handling of a car on the road makes one consumer choose a different car
from another consumer.
--Wilt
dannyg1
A couple more points worth mentioning are that the Bronica and Mamiya
differ slightly in available focal lengths.
Mamiya: 35, 45, 55, 70, 80, 110, 150, 210, 300, 500
Bronica: 40, 50, 60, 75, 100, 105, 135, 150, 180, 200, 250, 500
The Bronica is much more expensive as a system and is also dependent on
speed grip and motor options to allow ease in vertical handling. The AE3
prism has a far smaller image magnafication than most any MF prism on the
market (Below 76%), limiting its focusability for people who need negative
diopters for view.
The Mamiya readily accepts adaptors for use of non-OEM lenses, such as
H'blad. The Bronica offers no cross-system compatibility. The Bronica also
has a history of models/feature sets to consider and familiarize oneself with.
The Bronica lacks a shutter button activated AE lock mode and so, is
tougher to handle in AE/spot meteriing mode.
The Mamiya offers ISO keying with all Super/Pro backs, the Bronica lacks
this feature (at least the ETRc,ETR,ETRs series cameras/backs lack this).
The Bronica requires the use of $500 extention tubes while the Mamiya
tubes cost from $110.
The Mamiya in camera metering system is limited to step down when using
the leaf shutter series lenses.
The Bronica has a much lower resale value than the Mamiya (though this
seems to be swinging in the ETRsi's direction lately).
Danny
Wilt W wrote:
>
> Doug,
>>Snip<<
>
> << d. Give me an opinion (please let's not start a flaming thread)
> about Bronica vs Mamiya.>>
>
> The two cameras are both system cameras in terms of providing a
> selection of film backs, finders, lenses, and accessories. The Mamiya
> offers a wider selection of lenses.
> The Bronica has all leaf-shutter lenses, which makes it the camera of
> choice for anyone wanting to shoot 645 format with synchro-sun fill flash,
> but which adds to the cost of each lens purchased. While the Mamiyas do
> offer a few leaf shuttered lenses, they require you to use the motor
> winder for most convenience, and use of the leaf shutter lenses loses the
> AE feature of the metering prism.
> The Bronica has the ability to do TTL auto flash, while the Mamiyas do
> not. So again, Bronica is better in the flash usage department.
> Both cameras have roughly equivalent AE metering prisms with both spot
> and weighted averaging, but the Mamiya offers the automatic selection
> between the two modes while the Bronica does not.
> --Wilt
mmss
Doug said;
Am leaning strongly towards a used Bronica, most likely an
ETRS or ETR; however, a used Mamiya 645 would appear to fit
better into my budget.
One question I have about Mamiya was raised by a sales person
who "explained" to me that the problem with used Mamiyas is that
ther are so many versions (M645, M645J, M645-1000s, M645 Super)
and they are not all that compatible with one another. I have
reason to question his creditability, but this does cause me
concern--especially since I do not know the M645 timeline nor
the difference in features in the above.
Doug, all the M645s are older cameras. The 1000S is just like the
M645 except that the hidhest speed is 1/1000. All inserts are
interchangeable
as are the finders.
As far as Bronica goes. If you were to remove the covers from the
bodies of the ETR, ERTS and ETRSi you would find them to be the same
except for the off the film flash system of the ETRSi and for this
you need Bronica's flash.
99% of the parts from the ETRS body work in the ETR & ETRSi bodies.
The magazines are the exception to this rule.
I have serviced both Mamiya and Bronica for more than 20 years.
Mike
Wilt W
Danny,
Gee, I started off with a fairly neutral statement of differences (some
features advantages to Bronica, some to Mamiya) and I get back a biased
report on how Mamiya is better... Oh, well!
>> The Bronica is much more expensive as a system...<<
Due primarily to the cost of all leaf-shutter lenses, the Bronica does
get more expensive as a system as you buy more lenses. The M645 Pro
body+back starts off about $900 more expensive (brand new, or about $300
more used) than the Bronica, so the economics of the purchase are somewhat
dependent upon the size of the system being purchased.
>> The Bronica... is also dependent on speed grip and motor options to
allow ease in vertical handling.<<
So how is the M645 Super/Pro different in this regard?!?! If
anything, Bronica offers the advantage of a quiet, less expensive
alternative to using a motor winder grip in the Speed Grip while the M645
Super/Pro has the left-hand grip alternative, which some users find more
awkward than the 35mm-like handling of the Speed Grip. For those who like
left-handed grips, thrid-party products are available for use with any
camera (so Bronica is not at a disadvantage in this regard).
>> The Mamiya readily accepts adaptors for use of non-OEM lenses, such as
H'blad. The Bronica offers no cross-system compatibility.<<
I've never seen that Mamiya actually offers for sale any adapter for
non-Mamiya lens usage. Without such an offering off the shelf, one can
only resort to very expensive custom-made adapters, which largely negates
this "advantage". (Does Mamiya offer an adapter to allow RB/RZ lenses on
the M645 Super/Pro?)
>> The Bronica also has a history of models/feature sets to consider and
familiarize oneself with. <<
For anyone buying accessories, the Bronica 'history' is supremely easy
to deal with: all the accessories from the oldest cameras work on the
newest cameras. So one need not worry about which version of goodie is
being advertised, and whether or not it will "work on my camera".
>>The Bronica lacks a shutter button activated AE lock mode and so, is
tougher to handle in AE/spot meteriing mode. <<
It is true the shutter button does not do AE lock. I have found that
using the left hand to push the AE lock button on the prism is quiet easy
to do and therefore the "tougher" is not as bad as the above comment might
make it sound.
>>The Mamiya offers ISO keying with all Super/Pro backs, the Bronica lacks
this feature (at least the ETRc,ETR,ETRs series cameras/backs lack
this).<<
The ISO keying is a nice feature. The slot to store a dark slide in
the back is also a nice feature.
>>The Bronica requires the use of $500 extention tubes while the Mamiya
tubes cost from $110.<<
Where are you getting your prices?!?! Yes, the Bronica extension tubes
for the ETRS are more expensive than the Mamiya, but not by the margin you
depict. The B&H ad shows the Bronica tubes to be $380-400 (new) compared
to the $120-140 for Mamiya. Used gear brings the prices down to $160-200
for the Bronica (I don't know about Mamiya extension tube prices used, as
I could not find an ad in the current issue of Shutterbug).
>>The Bronica has a much lower resale value than the Mamiya (though this
seems to be swinging in the ETRsi's direction lately).<<
Not true at all. Comparing the 1992 vs. 1996 prices for basic body or
for lenses, the Mamiya 645 products and the Bronica 645 products have been
neck-to-neck in the retention of resale value. I used Shutterbug issues
from appropriate time periods for the comparison.
--Wilt
Michael Collier
In article <50etv5$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Wilt W <wi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> The Mamiya readily accepts adaptors for use of non-OEM lenses, such as
>H'blad. The Bronica offers no cross-system compatibility.<<
>
> I've never seen that Mamiya actually offers for sale any adapter for
>non-Mamiya lens usage. Without such an offering off the shelf, one can
>only resort to very expensive custom-made adapters, which largely negates
>this "advantage". (Does Mamiya offer an adapter to allow RB/RZ lenses on
>the M645 Super/Pro?)
i have owned mamiya 645 and mamiya RB/RZ equipment for about 10 years.
i know of no such adapter, custom or generic. i have never seen
anything even remotely like an off-the-shelf 3rd-party lens capability
for any medium format system.
i have seen the occasional pentax 645 lens hacked for mamiya or mamiya
645 lens hacked for pentax for sale used. the pentax systems include
adapters (67 to 645, 645 to 135, stackable to take 67 down to 135), and
there has been discussion here regarding those third-party adapters
(from germany?) to take focal-plane-shutter medium format lenses
(pentax 645, mamiya 645, etc) down to 135 (nikon, canon, etc).
that is the extent of it, as far as i have ever seen. if anyone knows
more, i am sure we would all be interested :-).
--
A Cappella UNIX Enterprise Support Michael H. Collier
11345 E. Grant Rd. email: aca...@netcom.com
Franktown, CO 80116 voice: (303) 898 5794 (24 hrs)
Brain: "Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?"
Pinky: "I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have ears we'd look like weasels!"
dannyg1
Wilt,
A couple of days ago you wrote a post pleading for a better espousal of
truth. In the interest of attaining some, all here should be aware that you are
a Bronica ETRsi user and that I own (and use) the Pentax and Mamiya
systems.
I don''t particularly appreciate the way in which you've presented this post to
which I'm responding. I see no need for your 'rebuttal' format and would
like to see you respond in a way more in keeping with your earlier 'search for
truth; let the facts speak for themselves' speech. There is an inherently petty
attitude present and it's a shame that you've felt the need to drag a factual
analysis down.
That said, I cannot let some of the untruthes you've bluntly proposed stand
unanswered.
1:" Gee, I started off with a fairly neutral statement of differences (some
> features advantages to Bronica, some to Mamiya) and I get back a biased
> report on how Mamiya is better... Oh, well!"
"Gee", indeed. Where did you get this from? Fact/truth is the point of my
earlier comments....Oh well; I'll have to keep your sensitivity to Bronica
disadvantages in mind, as I write the facts. Maybe I can placate you with
another fact? Bronica back/insert combos are far less expensive than the
Mamiya Pro ones are. That work? Gee; oh well...
2:> >> The Bronica is much more expensive as a system...<<
"Due primarily to the cost of all leaf-shutter lenses, the Bronica does
> get more expensive as a system as you buy more lenses. The M645 Pro
> body+back starts off about $900 more expensive (brand new, or about >$300 more used) than the Bronica, so the economics of the purchase are >somewhat dependent upon the size of the system being purchased."
Gee Wilt, where'd you do your math? BH lists the Mamiya Pro/back
combo at $1898 (or $1999 for an SVX with an 80, a crappy prism _and_ a
back) and the Bronica comes in at $1334. A difference of $564, _not_ $900!
What you've written is just not true. Oh well...
On the used side, the 9/96 Sbug lists the Etrsi body/back combo in ex+
condition at $1033 and the Mamiya Pro body/back at $1518. By my count,
the Mamiya has lost around 20% of its value while the Bronica loses about
30%. So much for your contention that they hold their value in equivilence.
3:>>The Bronica... is also dependent on speed grip and motor options to
allow ease in vertical handling.<<
"So how is the M645 Super/Pro different in this regard?!?! If
> anything, Bronica offers the advantage of a quiet, less expensive
> alternative to using a motor winder grip in the Speed Grip while the M645
> Super/Pro has the left-hand grip alternative, which some users find more
> awkward than the 35mm-like handling of the Speed Grip. For those who > like left-handed grips, thrid-party products are available for use with any
> camera (so Bronica is not at a disadvantage in this regard)."
How is the Pro/Super different than the Bronica in this regard? It's not!
(only the Pentax is) Your earlier post (to which my quote above was in reply)
inferred there was a disadvantage to the Mamiya in terms of vertical
handling; I _had_ to set you straight.
4: >> The Mamiya readily accepts adaptors for use of non-OEM lenses, such
as H'blad. The Bronica offers no cross-system compatibility.<<
"I've never seen that Mamiya actually offers for sale any adapter for
> non-Mamiya lens usage. Without such an offering off the shelf, one can
> only resort to very expensive custom-made adapters, which largely negates
> this "advantage". (Does Mamiya offer an adapter to allow RB/RZ lenses on the M645 Super/Pro?)"
Gee Wilt, sorry that you don't like this but the fact is _I can use_ H'blad
and Exacta lenses on my Mamiya 645. As a matter of fact, the H'blad 110/2
is one of my favorite lenses. Does Bronica have _any_ cross-system
compatibilty? Is an f2 lens that focusses to .8 meters or a 350/4 that focusses
to 1.9 meters an 'advantage'? Not to you? Oh well.
5: >> The Bronica also has a history of models/feature sets to consider and
> familiarize oneself with. <<
> For anyone buying accessories, the Bronica 'history' is supremely easy
> to deal with: all the accessories from the oldest cameras work on the
> newest cameras. So one need not worry about which version of goodie is
> being advertised, and whether or not it will "work on my camera".
Are you inferring that there are no differences between older and new
ETR's? The only Mamiya accessories that don't mate from older (ancient,
not Super) are the prisms, cable releases and motor grips. Inserts, bellows
and lenses all work to spec.
6: >>The Bronica lacks a shutter button activated AE lock mode and so, is
tougher to handle in AE/spot meteriing mode. <<
"It is true the shutter button does not do AE lock. I have found that
> using the left hand to push the AE lock button on the prism is quiet easy
> to do and therefore the "tougher" is not as bad as the above comment >might make it sound."
Two-hands:one hand, Two-hands:one hand. Maybe I'm missing something
here, but doesn't that even _sound_ harder to use? The Mamiya system is of
better design in this regard. Just a truth Wilt.
7:> >>The Bronica requires the use of $500 extention tubes while the
Mamiya tubes cost from $110.<<
"Where are you getting your prices?!?! Yes, the Bronica extension tubes
> for the ETRS are more expensive than the Mamiya, but not by the margin >you depict. The B&H ad shows the Bronica tubes to be $380-400 (new) >compared to the $120-140 for Mamiya. Used gear brings the prices down >to $160-200 for the Bronica (I don't know about Mamiya extension tube >prices used, as I could not find an ad in the current issue of Shutterbug)."
Used prices for Mamiya tubes run from $79 -110. Again proving my point
that Mamiya equiptment retains more of its value.
8: >>The Bronica has a much lower resale value than the Mamiya (though
this seems to be swinging in the ETRsi's direction lately).<<
"Not true at all. Comparing the 1992 vs. 1996 prices for basic body or
>for lenses, the Mamiya 645 products and the Bronica 645 products have >been neck-to-neck in the retention of resale value. I used Shutterbug issues
>from appropriate time periods for the comparison."
I've already shown two examples of how my assertion _is_ true and I don't
appreciate the manner in which you've thrown that barb. Gee Wilt, didn't
your mother teach you any manners?
To keep the record straight, both the Bronica and Mamiya systems fill the
needs of most users extremely well. The Bronica is more expensive new, but
is better built so, may be worth the extra money. The true basis of
comparison between the two systems is to decide whether you'll be needing
to use leaf shutter lenses, with frequency, on the system. If you do, don't
consider any system but the Bronica as it is the _only_ system to offer full
functionality of its meter/shutter with leaf lenses.
The Mamiya's greatest advantage is in its functionality. It is is very well
designed system that does almost everything and does it well. The Pentax
needs an upgraded body. Its lenses are the best built of the three systems
and are the least expensive making for the most affordable sytem.
Danny
Wilt W wrote:
>
> Danny,
>
> Gee, I started off with a fairly neutral statement of differences (some
> features advantages to Bronica, some to Mamiya) and I get back a biased
> report on how Mamiya is better... Oh, well!
>
> >> The Bronica is much more expensive as a system...<<
>
> Due primarily to the cost of all leaf-shutter lenses, the Bronica does
> get more expensive as a system as you buy more lenses. The M645 Pro
> body+back starts off about $900 more expensive (brand new, or about $300
> more used) than the Bronica, so the economics of the purchase are somewhat
> dependent upon the size of the system being purchased.
>
> >> The Bronica... is also dependent on speed grip and motor options to
> allow ease in vertical handling.<<
>
> So how is the M645 Super/Pro different in this regard?!?! If
> anything, Bronica offers the advantage of a quiet, less expensive
> alternative to using a motor winder grip in the Speed Grip while the M645
> Super/Pro has the left-hand grip alternative, which some users find more
> awkward than the 35mm-like handling of the Speed Grip. For those who like
> left-handed grips, thrid-party products are available for use with any
> camera (so Bronica is not at a disadvantage in this regard).
>
> >> The Mamiya readily accepts adaptors for use of non-OEM lenses, such as
> H'blad. The Bronica offers no cross-system compatibility.<<
>
> I've never seen that Mamiya actually offers for sale any adapter for
> non-Mamiya lens usage. Without such an offering off the shelf, one can
> only resort to very expensive custom-made adapters, which largely negates
> this "advantage". (Does Mamiya offer an adapter to allow RB/RZ lenses on
> the M645 Super/Pro?)
>
Douglas Bateman
I just love these "dedicated" newsgroups! You post a serious question
and you actually get serious, informative responses. Thank you one and
all.
Thanks to those who pointed me to Mamiya's Web site (www.mamiya.com). I
hadn't run across a reference to their site yet in all my surfing so
this was appreciated--and very educational and informative.
For those interested in what areas of photography I intended to use a
medium format camera: primarily landscape (with a range of sharp focus
from about 6'-infinity) and nature photography (primarily closeup).
Wildlife photography would be a possible goal once capital was raised to
invest in fast, long lenses. (My best expense thusfar has been a Tamron
200-400 zoom for my Maxxum 700si).
Thanks again for all your help. I'll keep looking for more opinions and
information as I anxiously await the Ft. Worth Camera Show this weekend.
Doug Bateman
Wilt W
Danny,
I sincerely regret that you feel the need to respond to my previous
reply with such intense passion. With perhaps the expeption of only the
opening comment, the entirety of my message was (hopefully) factual, and
asking questions for areas in which I was uncertain. That you seem to
take such questions as apparently sarcastic is regrettable.
>> I see no need for your 'rebuttal' format and would like to see you
respond in a way more in keeping with your earlier 'search for truth; let
the facts speak for themselves' speech. <<
Like many others on public newgroups or forums, I select passages so
that others may understand the context to which I reply. Not all my
comments to you were rebuttals; my comments about the Mamiya backs and
their advantages clearly illustrates that. I'm sorry I can't seem to
agree with you either, without it all seeming like a rebuttal.
>> Gee Wilt, where'd you do your math? BH lists the Mamiya Pro/back
combo at $1898 (or $1999 for an SVX with an 80, a crappy prism _and_ a
back) and the Bronica comes in at $1334. A difference of $564, _not_
$900!
What you've written is just not true. Oh well.<<
Bronica has for, as long as I can remember, chosen to INCLUDE the cost
of a back with the body when it is purchased. Mamiya has, for just as
long, always sold the back separate from the body. Therefore the B&H
prices are $975 for the Bronica body+back (although the ad does not state
as such, I can assure you this is the case) vs. the $1469+429 prices for
the M654 Pro body+back. My comment about a $900 initial differential
stands on the basis of that pricing alone.
>> On the used side, the 9/96 Sbug lists the Etrsi body/back combo in ex+
condition at $1033 and the Mamiya Pro body/back at $1518. By my count,
the Mamiya has lost around 20% of its value while the Bronica loses about
30%. So much for your contention that they hold their value in
equivilence. <<
I took my previous data from a 4/92 Shutterbug (B&H for new prices) vs.
a 9/96 Shuuterbug (KEH for used prices) for the then-current product line,
as if someone had bought a system back then and then tried to sell it
today.
M645 Super+back new: $899 + 245; 1996 used: $665-849 + $286-299
(1992 new total = $1144 vs. 1196 used total = 951-1148)
ETRSi+ Ei back new: $895; 1996 used: $789-849 +
254-275
(1992 new = $895 vs. 1996 used total = $1043-1124)
Mamiya 80mm/2.8 lens new: $299 1996 used: $245-299
Bronica 75mm EII lens, new: $399 1996 used: $364
Based on that comparison, of very commonly bought and sold items, I'd
still say the two systems are fairly equivalent in resale value retention.
If anything, since the Bronica body originally came new with the back,
but the two pieces are separated on the used market, the ETRSi has done
better than the M645 Super in this comparison (I didn't point THAT out in
my prior message...Had I really wanted to put down the M645 -- and I
DIDN'T have that in mind -- I could have. Since you're being somewhat
belligerant, I'll point out that fact in this re-examination of pricing!)
>> How is the Pro/Super different than the Bronica in this regard? It's
not! <<
Thank you for pointing that out. I was asking the question earlier to
merely understand why you were making that point, since the implication is
that you somehow considered the Pro/Super different from the Bronica in
pointing out the vertical handling issue.
--Wilt
dannyg1
Micheal,
I've emailed you a copy of my Overvew for 645 cameras which includes a
list of adaptors/suppliers/pricing for the Mamiya 645 system. If anyone else
would like to know more, email me and I'll send it to you as well
Danny Gonzalez
Michael Collier wrote:
>
<wi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> The Mamiya readily accepts adaptors for use of non-OEM lenses, such as
> >H'blad. The Bronica offers no cross-system compatibility.<<
> >
> > I've never seen that Mamiya actually offers for sale any adapter for
> >non-Mamiya lens usage. Without such an offering off the shelf, one can
> >only resort to very expensive custom-made adapters, which largely negates this "advantage". (Does Mamiya offer an adapter to allow RB/RZ lenses on the M645 Super/Pro?)
>
dannyg1
Wilt,
I sincerely regret that you don't seem to understand my reaction to your
comments:
Proposing that my comments were those of a shill, practicing Mamiya
boosterism was bound to raise my ire (and it did).
There are kinder/gentler ways of disagreeing with others than to bluntly
state 'you're wrong' or 'Not true at all' as you did. Did you really think I was
blowing air or that I didn't undertand the basics of the medium format
marketplace? I know this stuff; honest.
Sarcastically presenting aggressive remarks and then hiding behind the face
of moderate candor is, at best, unbecoming. We've been through this exact
situation once before and if you didn't know I'd read your words as sarcastic
condescension the first time, you surely knew it this time.
We agree on most points in this discussion (of the 645 systems). You will
never convince me that the current marketplace supports enough demand
for the Bronica system to bring ETR prices to the same level of return as that
enjoyed by the Mamiya. As I said before, the gap has considerably narrowed
since the introduction of the AEIII prism and I can see that there may soon
be a day when Bronica does enjoy better resale returns, but these days, clean
ETRS packages are common at under $1000 (there are two currently on
marketplace. ETR packages are currently valued at under $600) inclusive of
AEII prism, back and 75 EII lens. Clearly, the Super (a sub $700 _2 lens
system_ upon introduction.) enjoys a far better margin of return (as an
investment at least).with its current $1300+ 'real life' market-value outfitted
as the Bronica above.
Danny
Wilt W wrote:
>
> Danny,
>
> I sincerely regret that you feel the need to respond to my previous
> reply with such intense passion. With perhaps the expeption of only the
> opening comment, the entirety of my message was (hopefully) factual, and
> asking questions for areas in which I was uncertain. That you seem to
> take such questions as apparently sarcastic is regrettable.
>
> >> I see no need for your 'rebuttal' format and would like to see you
> respond in a way more in keeping with your earlier 'search for truth; let
> the facts speak for themselves' speech. <<
>
> Like many others on public newgroups or forums, I select passages so
> that others may understand the context to which I reply. Not all my
> comments to you were rebuttals; my comments about the Mamiya backs and
> their advantages clearly illustrates that. I'm sorry I can't seem to
> agree with you either, without it all seeming like a rebuttal.
>
> >> Gee Wilt, where'd you do your math? BH lists the Mamiya Pro/back
> combo at $1898 (or $1999 for an SVX with an 80, a crappy prism _and_ a
> back) and the Bronica comes in at $1334. A difference of $564, _not_
> $900!
> What you've written is just not true. Oh well.<<
>
> Bronica has for, as long as I can remember, chosen to INCLUDE the cost
> of a back with the body when it is purchased. Mamiya has, for just as
> long, always sold the back separate from the body. Therefore the B&H
> prices are $975 for the Bronica body+back (although the ad does not state
> as such, I can assure you this is the case) vs. the $1469+429 prices for
> the M654 Pro body+back. My comment about a $900 initial differential
> stands on the basis of that pricing alone.
>
> >> On the used side, the 9/96 Sbug lists the Etrsi body/back combo in ex+
> condition at $1033 and the Mamiya Pro body/back at $1518. By my count,
> the Mamiya has lost around 20% of its value while the Bronica loses about
> 30%. So much for your contention that they hold their value in
> equivilence. <<
>
> I took my previous data from a 4/92 Shutterbug (B&H for new prices) vs.
> a 9/96 Shuuterbug (KEH for used prices) for the then-current product line,
> as if someone had bought a system back then and then tried to sell it
> today.
>
> M645 Super+back new: $899 + 245; 1996 used: $665-849 + $286-299
> (1992 new total = $1144 vs. 1196 used total = 951-1148)
> ETRSi+ Ei back new: $895; 1996 used: $789-849 +
> 254-275
> (1992 new = $895 vs. 1996 used total = $1043-1124)
> Mamiya 80mm/2.8 lens new: $299 1996 used: $245-299
> Bronica 75mm EII lens, new: $399 1996 used: $364
>
> Based on that comparison, of very commonly bought and sold items, I'd
> still say the two systems are fairly equivalent in resale value retention.
> If anything, since the Bronica body originally came new with the back,
> but the two pieces are separated on the used market, the ETRSi has done
> better than the M645 Super in this comparison (I didn't point THAT out in
> my prior message...Had I really wanted to put down the M645 -- and I
> DIDN'T have that in mind -- I could have. Since you're being somewhat
> belligerant, I'll point out that fact in this re-examination of pricing!)
>
> >> How is the Pro/Super different than the Bronica in this regard? It's
> not! <<
>
MMorris
> > --
Danny
..you wrote"Are you inferring that there are no differences between older and
new
..ETR's? The only Mamiya accessories that don't mate from older (ancient,
>not Super) are the prisms, cable releases and motor grips. Inserts, bellows
>and lenses all work to spec.
Yes Danny, it is true that every accessory from the older model ETR's fits the
new ETR-Si perfectly, since most all changes have been to the electronics in the
camera/ TTL/metering capabilities. ALL backs, all lens all SPeed grips, etc will
fit . The reverse situation is not 100%. in that a motor drive for the ETR-Si will
not fit the ETR since the electronics to fire the shutter from the grip are not
present in the older body. All lens and finders and bellows, extension tubes,
cable releases, diopters etc will fit the older cameras just fine. They all to
"spec" as you say.
As to a cost comparsion, to be "fair" in pricing out a basic outfit, you would
need to price the Mamiya with the LEAF SHUTTER lenses to be perfectly fair and
compare apples to apples. In that case the Mamiya prices out much more
expensive than the Bronica ETR-Si. An d arn't we trying to be fair here. The
single biggest feature difference you pointed out was synchro sun or fill flash at
any speed. THAT IS the biggest reason to buy the Bronica and I can see no reason
to move to medium format for any other feature. It is evident that Mamiya has
seen the light of fill flash also, because the orginal M645 did not offer leaf
shutter lenses. It was not until the next generation that they felt inclined to fill
the void in their feature list of the ability to synch at any speed. They must have
felt it was pretty important to introduce three specialized lenses to offer that
one and only feature.
BTW, the current crop of film backs for the ETR does key the ISO info to the
body.
MMorris
Tamron Bronica
Wilt W
Danny,
>> Sarcastically presenting aggressive remarks and then hiding behind the
face
of moderate candor is, at best, unbecoming. We've been through this exact
situation once before and if you didn't know I'd read your words as
sarcastic
condescension the first time, you surely knew it this time.<<
If sarcasm were intended, your remarks are on target. You,
unfortunately, put a lot of negativism into my comments that I did NOT
intend. For example, you take some open question (which I posed for the
purposes of LEARNING information - such as whether lens adapters were
available off the shelf or not) as sarcastic. I'm sorry, but I should
take offense for very rapidly being accused and judged and sentenced and
not being given the benefit of the doubt.
--Wilt
Wilt W
Mr. Morris,
>>BTW, the current crop of film backs for the ETR does key the ISO info to
the
body.<<
I am exceeding curious as to how the Bronica ETRSi would transmit the
ISO information from the back to the AE prism...as there are no electrical
contacts in the body that would pass that data from the film back, even if
the back had electrical contact. If you tell me how they do it, I might
just go buy some new backs!
--Wilt
Nick Silva
> expensive than the Bronica ETR-Si. An d arn't we trying to be fair here. The
> single biggest feature difference you pointed out was synchro sun or
fill flash at
> any speed. THAT IS the biggest reason to buy the Bronica and I can see
no reason
> to move to medium format for any other feature. It is evident that Mamiya has
You don't seriously mean this, do you? There are lots of reasons (well,
one big one) to move to MF besides fill-flash...like, image
quality...personally, I bought the Mamiya over the Bronica because I
didn't want leaf shutter lenses. Worrying about the accuracy of one
shutter is enough; having one in every lens to worry about is crazy unless
you need the fill-flash, which I don't.
Nick Silva
________________________________________________________________________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
n...@inamess.vip.best.com
________________________________________________________________________________
John Sparks
If it's the same as the GS-1, the AE prism hangs over the back and has
contacts on the Prism that match contacts on the back. The ISO data
is transmitted from the back to the prism without involving the camera
(the meter cells are in the prism after all). I would guess that you
would need at least the latest AE prism as well as the backs (and I
have now idea if this prism can be used on older bodies).
John Sparks
Wilt W
John,
>>If it's the same as the GS-1, the AE prism hangs over the back and has
contacts on the Prism that match contacts on the back. The ISO data
is transmitted from the back to the prism without involving the camera
(the meter cells are in the prism after all). I would guess that you
would need at least the latest AE prism as well as the backs (and I
have now idea if this prism can be used on older bodies).<<
Unfortunately it's not that easy. One has to have the contacts in the
AE prism to do that! <s> I happen to own the most recent AE-III prism,
and I've owned the predecessor AE-II prism in the past. Both have
contacts at the front edge only. So unless Bronica has come out with a
brand new AE-IV prism in recent months the GS-1 like approach isn't
feasible.
--Wilt (still curious and waiting for a reply from the Tamron Bronica
rep))
dannyg1
Wilt,
I'm just about left speechless. As for your 'learning' question: You've, well....,
left me speechless once again. Just to make sure I've got this straight, you
_really_ don't know the answer to your question, right? Don't josh us all
now, enquiring minds and all...
Danny
Wilt W wrote:
>
> Danny,
>
> >> Sarcastically presenting aggressive remarks and then hiding behind the
> face
> of moderate candor is, at best, unbecoming. We've been through this exact
> situation once before and if you didn't know I'd read your words as
> sarcastic
> condescension the first time, you surely knew it this time.<<
>
Lee Choong Hsen
: Thanks to those who pointed me to Mamiya's Web site (www.mamiya.com). I
: hadn't run across a reference to their site yet in all my surfing so
: this was appreciated--and very educational and informative.
Does Bronica have one too?
dannyg1
Wilt,
Unfortunately, Mr Morris's mouth seems to have moved faster than the
Bronica design team.
Danny
MMorris
that for everyday photography the quality is there. If you were talking about
going to 6x7 over 35mm rather than 6x4.5 i would agree that there is a
substantial difference in image quality for professional work.
FYI, the control of the shutter in any Bronica camera is in the body not the lens,
just as in the Mamiya, the only difference is, with the Bronica if your shutter
sticks or hangs, you simply put on another lens, with Mamiya, if you don't have
a backup, your done for the day. The shutter speeds and firing mechanism are
controlled via the camera and passed thru the gold contacts and a mechanical
linkage to the shutter mechanism. This insures the timing accuracy of each and
every Bronica lens. Hasselbald is an example of a lens/shutter system that
allows for variations in accuracy since the timing mechanism is totally
mechanical and may vary from lens to lens.
MMorris
Tamron/Bronica
MMorris
Tamron owns the Bronica company since August 1995.
MMorris
Tamron/Bronica
Tyrone S. Whitley
In article <3232EF...@ix.netcom.com>, mmor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Marvin,
While I agree that the quality jump from 35mm to 645 is not usually as
great as 645 to 67, I do have a hard time feeling comfortable saying that
as a general rule. In my experience, the 645 is the first format that
makes comfortably high quality A4 magazine enlergements with ISO 100-400
E6 films. While 35mm can be quite capable in this regard, a quick look at
any Sports Illustrated will show that, even with the finest equipment,
it's not consistently good enough to provide the quality nescessary all of
the time. Again, in my experience, 645 does consistently provide that
quality. The editors I work for certainly require 645 a a minimum 99% of
the time.
645/66 systems are also designed to provide quick, motorized and automated
exposures handheld; much like 35mm. The use of a focal plane shutter
allows for far faster lens options with closer focusing than most leaf
designs (Rollei's superlative 40 3.5, 50 2.8, 80/2, 180 2.8 and 300/4
lenses for the 6000 series cameras are the exception) and finish an almost
seamless upgrade to a more useful, better gradated, sharper and more
consistent image.
Improvements that would propel Bronica to a better market position are not
hard to guess at. In my opinion, far quieter shutter, motor and mirror
action, better implemented exposure options and faster lenses (Possibly
with an H'blad F-series style leaf/focal plane combination of fast F
lenses) combined with Bronica's steam annealed, milled, die cast frame,
good build quality (AKA GS-1 rather than the now more plasticky ETRsi) and
body control updates would seriously advance the cause. As I've suggested
before, Bronica could also go a long way by providing adaptors to allow
cross-compatibilty between lines. Bronica should do this on their own
because, in contrast to Mamiya (and like Rollei who do supply some
x-system adaptors), Bronica doesn't now hold a large enough market share
to support an aftermarket manufacturers risk in this area. Such an adaptor
would surely make the current Bronica systems more attractive and would, I
believe, entice many to own full GS1/SQAi/ETRsi sets.
You and I have been through this discussion before so, don't feel
obligated to answer on the adaptation issue. I would however, very much
like to hear more about why you feel that 645 isn't a true medium format,
or a real improvement over 35mm. I'd also like to hear your vision of
Bronica camera offerings/feature sets of the future .
Danny Gonzalez
nms
> Nick Silva wrote:
> >
> > In article <322DD8...@ix.netcom.com>, mmor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > > expensive than the Bronica ETR-Si. An d arn't we trying to be fair
here. The
> > > single biggest feature difference you pointed out was synchro sun or
> > fill flash at
> > > any speed. THAT IS the biggest reason to buy the Bronica and I can see
> > no reason
> > > to move to medium format for any other feature. It is evident that
Mamiya has
> >
> > You don't seriously mean this, do you? There are lots of reasons (well,
> > one big one) to move to MF besides fill-flash...like, image
> > quality...personally, I bought the Mamiya over the Bronica because I
> > didn't want leaf shutter lenses. Worrying about the accuracy of one
> > shutter is enough; having one in every lens to worry about is crazy unless
> > you need the fill-flash, which I don't.
> >
> > Nick Silva
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
> > Chance favors the prepared mind.
> >
> > n...@inamess.vip.best.com
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
> Yes I seriously did mean it. The quality of the new crop of 35mm films
is such
> that for everyday photography the quality is there. If you were talking
about
> going to 6x7 over 35mm rather than 6x4.5 i would agree that there is a
> substantial difference in image quality for professional work.
>
> FYI, the control of the shutter in any Bronica camera is in the body not
the lens,
> just as in the Mamiya, the only difference is, with the Bronica if your
shutter
> sticks or hangs, you simply put on another lens, with Mamiya, if you
don't have
> a backup, your done for the day. The shutter speeds and firing mechanism are
> controlled via the camera and passed thru the gold contacts and a mechanical
> linkage to the shutter mechanism. This insures the timing accuracy of
each and
> every Bronica lens. Hasselbald is an example of a lens/shutter system that
> allows for variations in accuracy since the timing mechanism is totally
> mechanical and may vary from lens to lens.
>
> MMorris
> Tamron/Bronica
Maybe you did mean it, but that don't make it true...;)
I've found a huge difference in quality between 645 and 35mm, no matter
what film you use for either. And your qualification of 'everyday
photography' is mysterious to me: is this the photgraphy in which you are
less concerned about quality? If 'everyday photography' means Aunt Edna's
new false teeth celebration, then I'd agree that 35mm is probably enough,
unless you were looking to make a huge enlargement. But in my 'everyday
photography', I never know when I'll be running across that
one-in-a-million shot, so I'd rather have the higher quality all the time.
As for your comments about the Bronica's shutter speeds being more
accurate than HB's, I have found this to be entirely correct. As for their
being as accurate as the focal plane shutter in the Mamiya..well, guess
again. I always test the speeds of all lenses/bodies before I shoot with
them, particularly if the system is unknown to me. The Bronica was a lot
more precise than the HB, but still fell apart (variations +/- 1/3 stop
or more) at the higher speeds, I suppose due to the mechanical properties
of the shutter. And this was not consistent from lens to lens. So there.
;)
Name withheld by request
In article <dannyg1-0809...@ppp-34.ts-8.nyc.idt.net>,
Tyrone S. Whitley <dan...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>While I agree that the quality jump from 35mm to 645 is not usually as
>great as 645 to 67, I do have a hard time feeling comfortable saying that
>as a general rule. In my experience, the 645 is the first format that
>makes comfortably high quality A4 magazine enlergements with ISO 100-400
>E6 films.
imho, the quality jump from 35mm to 645 is significantly greater than from
645 to 6x7.
16x20's made from the 645 cropping of a Rolleiflex TLR are substantially
better than 16x20's made from any 35mm system (I've used Canon FD,
Pentax screw-mount, Leica-R, and Olympus SLRs, and Canon, Agfa, Konica
rangefinders).
on the other hand, 16x20's made from 6x7 are only a little better than
those made from the same 645 cropping of a Rollei TLR.
of course, this isn't surprising, since the 645 negative is 1.7x the size
of 35mm, while 6x7 is only 1.3x the size of 645.
of course, this assumes you have quality gear in each format. there are
plenty of old 6x9 folders that don't really beat 35mm.
j. albert
Thomas Chapin
On 10 Sep 1996, Name withheld by request wrote:
> imho, the quality jump from 35mm to 645 is significantly greater than from
> 645 to 6x7.
> of course, this isn't surprising, since the 645 negative is 1.7x the size
> of 35mm, while 6x7 is only 1.3x the size of 645.
Proportions are a bit off, The area of the 645 negative is about 2.7x
larger than 35 mm. The 6x7 is about 4.5x larger than 35mm and 1.7x larger
than 645. Solely based on area, the jump from 35mm to 645 is greater
than 645 to 6x7. But personally/aesthetically I imagine some
folks think will argue the 645 to 6x7 jump is larger.
Thomas
dannyg1
J,
6x7 seems to me, to be the first format capable of giving a large format
'creamy' gradation in full length (or farthur) photo's. 35mm has surprised
me many times and I can see people thinking that it can compete with 645.
Problem is, when 35 doesn't provide the quality nescessary, it _really_
doesn't supply quality at all. 645/66, OTOH, is consistently good and
sometimes amazingly good; I agree.
Danny Gonzalez
Name withheld by request wrote:
>
> In article <dannyg1-0809...@ppp-34.ts-8.nyc.idt.net>,
> Tyrone S. Whitley <dan...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
> >While I agree that the quality jump from 35mm to 645 is not usually as
> >great as 645 to 67, I do have a hard time feeling comfortable saying that
> >as a general rule. In my experience, the 645 is the first format that
> >makes comfortably high quality A4 magazine enlergements with ISO 100-400
> >E6 films.
>
> imho, the quality jump from 35mm to 645 is significantly greater than from
> 645 to 6x7.
>
> 16x20's made from the 645 cropping of a Rolleiflex TLR are substantially
> better than 16x20's made from any 35mm system (I've used Canon FD,
> Pentax screw-mount, Leica-R, and Olympus SLRs, and Canon, Agfa, Konica
> rangefinders).
>
> on the other hand, 16x20's made from 6x7 are only a little better than
> those made from the same 645 cropping of a Rollei TLR.
>
> of course, this isn't surprising, since the 645 negative is 1.7x the size
> of 35mm, while 6x7 is only 1.3x the size of 645.
>
nms
In article
<Pine.A32.3.92a.96091...@homer17.u.washington.edu>,
Thomas Chapin <tch...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On 10 Sep 1996, Name withheld by request wrote:
>
> > imho, the quality jump from 35mm to 645 is significantly greater than from
> > 645 to 6x7.
>
> > of course, this isn't surprising, since the 645 negative is 1.7x the size
> > of 35mm, while 6x7 is only 1.3x the size of 645.
>
> Proportions are a bit off, The area of the 645 negative is about 2.7x
> larger than 35 mm. The 6x7 is about 4.5x larger than 35mm and 1.7x larger
> than 645. Solely based on area, the jump from 35mm to 645 is greater
> than 645 to 6x7. But personally/aesthetically I imagine some
> folks think will argue the 645 to 6x7 jump is larger.
I think the author was talking linear, while you are talking areal. So
both your numbers are right...
Nick