Medium Format Recomendations (Bronica GS-1?)
John Wiederhold
Well I finally decided on investing in a medium format camera, and
would like to get comments from people on the various ones out there.
The one that I'm leaning towards now is the Bronica GS-1. Some of
the things that are drawing me towards it are the 6x7 cm neg size
versus 6x6 cm ( Does it make a difference? ), a nice well thought
out design, and some features avalible as add ons ( metering with the
prism finder, speed grip, etc). I would love to hear from some GS-1
users and see how they feel.
Other cameras I've been looking at are the Bronica SQ-A, Mamiya RZ67,
and the Hasselblad 500C/M, or 503CX. Here some random comments on them
from just a brief look:
Mamiya RZ67: I really like this camera. I seems like a great studio
camera, but it is so big and heavy that I fear that its unusable for
any hand held stuff. It has a 6x7 cm neg size, with a back that rotates
for horizontal or vertical shots ( nice feature ). Built in bellows.
According to the local camera shop, Mamiya has a deal in Feb. that when
you buy a RZ67 you get a free polaroid back and free winder ( About a
$600 value ).
Bronica SQ-A: Nice camera. 6x6 neg size. With a prism finder and the
speed grip, it seems like it would handle almost as fast as a 35mm. I
would be getting the waist level finder and no grip for now though.
About the same size as the Hasselblad. Easy to use mirror lockup and
multiple exposures. One possible advantage is that the backs hinge on
the top rather then the bottom (like hasselblads), so they won't interfere
with tripods.
Hasselblad 500CM: The most basic Hasselblad. Mechanical shuters, very
basic, but it's a Hasselblad. Feels nice, nice quality, etc. Carl Zeiss
Lenses.
Hasselblad 503CX: Much like the 500CM, but a built in TTL meter and a
nicer focusing screen. All for about $700-$900 more than the 500CM.
The GS-1 is much like the SQ-A, but a bit bigger and heavier. Electronic
shutter from 16 to 1/500 secs.
I would appreciate any comments on any of these cameras. Tell me what you
like and what you hate about them. Is it worth buying a Hasselblad? Does
6x7 vs. 6x6 make a difference? While you're at it I'm also looking into light
meters. I like the Minolta Flash meter IV alot now, but am also looking at
the Minolta Meter IIIf, the Sekonic DigiLite F model-328 or DigiPro X-1,
and a Gossen.
Post or Email I will send a summary. Thanks for any comments and I'll
let you know which I decide on and how I like it. BTW: Now I have a
Cannon T-90, which I really enjoy.
John Wiederhold
Stanford University Medical School Information Systems Group
jo...@med.stanford.edu
johnw%m...@STANFORD.BITNET
ucbvax!jo...@med.stanford.edu (I think)
Steve Hix
>
> Well I finally decided on investing in a medium format camera, and
> would like to get comments from people on the various ones out there.
> The one that I'm leaning towards now is the Bronica GS-1. Some of
>
> speed grip, it seems like it would handle almost as fast as a 35mm. I
> would be getting the waist level finder and no grip for now though.
> About the same size as the Hasselblad. Easy to use mirror lockup and
> multiple exposures. One possible advantage is that the backs hinge on
> the top rather then the bottom (like hasselblads), so they won't interfere
> with tripods.
>
> shutter from 16 to 1/500 secs.
I have an SQ-A, and I'm quite favorably impressed with it. The lenses (PS
series) are *very* nice. The GS-1 applies here, since the PS lenses are
supposed to be derived from the PG lenses of the GS-1.
> I would appreciate any comments on any of these cameras. Tell me what you
> like and what you hate about them. Is it worth buying a Hasselblad?
I don't think so. They're good cameras, no doubt about it, but they
aren't twice as good as an SQ-A. And their lenses really aren't any
better, optically, than Bronicas new ones. If I were a working professional,
with the need to rent various exotic accessories frequently to perform
for a client, then the Hassy would make more sense. But I'm not, and I
don't.
> Does 6x7 vs. 6x6 make a difference?
Yes. About 1.5 times actual usable negative area, for 8x10 proportions.
(The 6x6 negative gives you about 1.18 times the 4.5x6 negative for the
same proportion final print.)
On the other hand, if you're on a tripod and you want to shoot a horizontal
picture...you probably want to get the rotary finder. I prefer to shoot
square and crop the print, rather than fight the tripod all the time.
I've almost come to the decision of late to drop the 120 format completely,
and go with 4x5 and 35mm to cover everything. The swings and tilts are
beginning to look pretty good to me.
I'll probably be selling my SQ-A pretty soon...the view camera gives me
more of what I want, and I'm willing to pay the extra effort required.
If I did more studio and flash work, though, I'd stay with rollfilm.
> While you're at it I'm also looking into light meters. I like the Minolta
> Flash meter IV alot now, but am also looking at
> the Minolta Meter IIIf, the Sekonic DigiLite F model-328 or DigiPro X-1,
> and a Gossen.
I've used the LunaPro, and currently have a Sekonic L-328. I like the Sekonic
better, and it works very nicely (for incident metering).
> BTW: Now I have a Cannon T-90, which I really enjoy.
I'm *not* getting rid of mine, or the F-1, either.
------------
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
Goldberg
>Well I finally decided on investing in a medium format camera. . .
>I've been looking at the Bronica SQ-A and GS-1, Mamiya RZ67,
>and the Hasselblad 500C/M, or 503CX. . .
>
John, I own the Bronica SQ-A system (SQ-A and SQ-Am bodies, 40/80/150
mm lenses, speed grip, two backs, 120 and 220 film inserts, prism finder,
and meter prism finder. My primary use is environmental and wedding
photography. The square format is great for the wedding photojounalism
style I practice because it avoids the persistent horizontal vs. vertical
decision. Square also fills the album page (10x10 or 5x5 enlargements).
Medium format allows for negative retouching, cropping options, and
enlargeability you don't have with 35mm. But the equipment is heavier
and very costly. The functions you take for granted in 35 are add-ons
(if available at all!) in medium. So you might reconsider the decision
to go medium format unless you have a good reason.
I know owners of the other systems you are considering. If I were doing
just portraiture of landscape shots, Id consider a horizontal "ideal"
format such as the GS-1, RB-67, or RZ-67 in the 6x7cm format. Don't
overlook the "645" format cameras available from Bronica, Pentax, and
Mamiya. Realize that the Pentax and the Mamiya use focal plane shutters,
which unlike the in-lens leaf shutter of the Bronica ETRS, does not
allow flash sync at high shutter speeds. This could be a serious problem
with outdoor flash fill.
The ETRS is also attractive due to its small size. An ETRSi version
with TTL flash metering is now available. Perhaps this will give a
good compromise between camera size and film size.
Sometimes I regret not getting into the Hasselblad before. Cost of replacing
my current stuff with 'Blad now would be about $14,000! If doing so,
I'd probably go for the 503CX over the 500CM. That TTL flash metering
is a great feature, as is the brighter viewfinder. Focussing is difficult
through the dark finder offered by the 500CM.
Good luck.
Rei Shinozuka
[TTL in the 503]
>is a great feature, as is the brighter viewfinder. Focussing is difficult
>through the dark finder offered by the 500CM.
The difference is due to the Accumatte screen, which is user-interchangeable
for all CMs. (The older C screens had to be exchanged by a repair shop to get
the film-plane and viewfinder adjustment correct).
I've never really missed TTL metering with the 500CM. I need to use a light
meter with the guy anyway, so don't mind using a flash meter.
Actually, I'm so slow with the Hassy that I can use guide numbers!
-rei
Huay-Yong Wang
>>Well I finally decided on investing in a medium format camera. . .
>Realize that the Pentax and the Mamiya use focal plane shutters,
>which unlike the in-lens leaf shutter of the Bronica ETRS, does not
>allow flash sync at high shutter speeds.
Not so in Mamiya 645. Mamiya 645 also carries leaf shutter lenses
that allow flash sync at high shutter speeds.
I think one of the main factor in deciding what medium format system
to buy is cost. If cost is not a problem, I suggest you check out
the new Rollei 6008 (6x6 format). It has a very sophisticated built in
TTL metering offering spot/multispot meterings plus a **whole lot more**,
and of course Carl Zeiss optics. I think it is basically a high tech
alternative to a Hassy. I did have the opportunity to play with one,
and God, it is a wonderful camera. Do check it out, but you might
regret doing it... As for me, I ended up buying a Mamiya 645 Super.
The decision was based on the fact that I can afford the rest of the
system in this lifetime and more importantly be still in good terms
with my wife :-)
Good luck
- Huay-Yong
John Sparks
>would like to get comments from people on the various ones out there.
>The one that I'm leaning towards now is the Bronica GS-1. Some of
>the things that are drawing me towards it are the 6x7 cm neg size
>versus 6x6 cm ( Does it make a difference? ), a nice well thought
>out design, and some features avalible as add ons ( metering with the
>prism finder, speed grip, etc). I would love to hear from some GS-1
>users and see how they feel.
I have never used a GS-1, but it seems like a good camera. One thing
to consider is that the GS-1 (or ETRS or any non-square format camera
without a revolving back) is almost unusable for vertical shots with
a waist level finder. The square format solves this problem, otherwise
you need the bucks for a prism finder right away (or only shoot horizontals).
The SQA is probably easier to hand-hold because of its smaller size and
lighter weight. The difference in film size can be significant if using
faster films and/or very large enlargments. I have a Bronica ETRS and
sometimes wish for a larger negative, though TMAX 100 shows no grain even
with 16x20's and even TMAX 400 only shows slight grain in 8x10's and then
only in evenly toned areas like a cloudless sky, color film seems more
grainy than black and white, but the Fuji Reala I have shot is very nice.
The only real problem I have with the ETRS is the lack of a mirror lock-up
(I learned the hard way, never buy a medium format SLR without mirror
lock-up, the mirrors in these cameras are very big and image sharpness
suffers considerably with shutter speeds in the 1/2 to 1/30 sec range even
on my 15 pound Gitzo tripod). The ETRSi solves the mirror lock-up problem,
but I would also like to have the sharper lenses of the GS-1 and SQA (PG and
PS lenses respectively). If you buy an SQA, get the PS lenses not the normal
lenses, the increase in sharpness is very real.
>Other cameras I've been looking at are the Bronica SQ-A, Mamiya RZ67,
>and the Hasselblad 500C/M, or 503CX. Here some random comments on them
>from just a brief look:
I have used Hasselblad's in the photo studio where I used to work. I never
really liked them very much, but they were older models so I don't really know
how they compare with the current stuff. I never liked the way the shutter
speed and aperature locked together for EV settings, setting or changing
exposure was much more cumbersome than any other camera I have worked with.
The focusing screen was very dark and hard to use, but this can fixed today
with one of the aftermarket bright screens and the new Hasselblad screens
may solve the problem. My final complaint was the biggest problem. The
mechanical shutter speeds in the lenses were not consistant between lenses.
With the 4 or 5 lenses in the studio, the variation between lenses set to the
same speed could be as much as a stop. The new Bronica's have solved this
problem with the electronic timing in the camera bodies so they give consistant
exposures when changing lenses. When I bought my medium format camera, I didn't
even consider the Hasselblad from all the problems I had with my boss's camera
(he said he would have bought a Bronica if he had to do it over again), besides
the much higher price. You can tell that the Hasselblads were designed a long
time ago when you use them, modern cameras are easier to use for the most part.
>Mamiya RZ67: I really like this camera. I seems like a great studio
>camera, but it is so big and heavy that I fear that its unusable for
>any hand held stuff. It has a 6x7 cm neg size, with a back that rotates
>for horizontal or vertical shots ( nice feature ). Built in bellows.
>According to the local camera shop, Mamiya has a deal in Feb. that when
>you buy a RZ67 you get a free polaroid back and free winder ( About a
>$600 value ).
I would love a Mamiya RZ67, but the weight and size would make it a bear to
carry arround. Handholding seems very difficult for more than a shot or two
at a time. About 12 years ago, a professional photographer I knew shot almost
exclusively with a RB67, mostly hand-held. He even shot high-school football
games with the beast hand-held with a very large handle-mount flash (he also
used this flash almost all the times for fill, I think it was permanentely
attached to the camera). If you did this very often, you wouldn't have to lift
weights! The ability to hand-hold a medium format camera may not be as
important as you think. In order to really achieve the improved quality of
medium format over 35mm, a tripod is very important. Almost all of my
medium format photographs are taken on a tripod, and a good portion of ones
that weren't show some motion blur. The only exception to this are shots
taken with electronic flash (tripod optional).
>Bronica SQ-A: Nice camera. 6x6 neg size. With a prism finder and the
>speed grip, it seems like it would handle almost as fast as a 35mm. I
>would be getting the waist level finder and no grip for now though.
>About the same size as the Hasselblad. Easy to use mirror lockup and
>multiple exposures. One possible advantage is that the backs hinge on
>the top rather then the bottom (like hasselblads), so they won't interfere
>with tripods.
I think this would be the camera I would get today if I were buying a new
camera (the only other choice would be a RZ67, but some 4x5's are easier to
carry). The PS lenses are at least as sharp as Hasselblad lenses, probably
sharper. The camera feels good in my hands and is not significantly heaver
than my ETRS expecially since I could use a waist level finder. The ETRS
backs hinge up as well, but they then interfere with the prism finder. The
Hasselblad backs were easier to change, not that its that big a deal (I don't
remember a problem with interference on tripods, but it's been 8 years or so
since I used one).
>Hasselblad 500CM: The most basic Hasselblad. Mechanical shuters, very
>basic, but it's a Hasselblad. Feels nice, nice quality, etc. Carl Zeiss
>Lenses.
>
>Hasselblad 503CX: Much like the 500CM, but a built in TTL meter and a
>nicer focusing screen. All for about $700-$900 more than the 500CM.
I don't think the Hasselblad's are worth the money unless you abuse them
terribly. They are very well made. Even so I think two Bronica bodies
are more reliable than a single Hasselblad for about the same price.
>The GS-1 is much like the SQ-A, but a bit bigger and heavier. Electronic
>shutter from 16 to 1/500 secs.
I like this camera too, but it needs a prism or the right angle prism (or
what ever they call the finder which has a rotating part for vertical shots).
The extra price and negative size over the SQA will be mostly wasted without
being able to shoot vertical shots with the waist level finder.
>I would appreciate any comments on any of these cameras. Tell me what you
>like and what you hate about them. Is it worth buying a Hasselblad? Does
>6x7 vs. 6x6 make a difference? While you're at it I'm also looking into light
>meters. I like the Minolta Flash meter IV alot now, but am also looking at
>the Minolta Meter IIIf, the Sekonic DigiLite F model-328 or DigiPro X-1,
>and a Gossen.
I have a Zone VI modified Pentax digital spot meter that I would not trade
for anything else available. I have used various Minolta meters in the past
and was always impressed with their quality. If you will be using studio flash,
having a meter that accepts a sync cord makes it possible to measure the
flash without an assistant (or being a contortionist).
>Post or Email I will send a summary. Thanks for any comments and I'll
>let you know which I decide on and how I like it. BTW: Now I have a
>Cannon T-90, which I really enjoy.
>
>
>John Wiederhold
>Stanford University Medical School Information Systems Group
>jo...@med.stanford.edu
>johnw%m...@STANFORD.BITNET
>ucbvax!jo...@med.stanford.edu (I think)
>----------
Let me know if you have any more questions.
John Sparks
hplabs!hp-lsd!sparks
spa...@hp-lsd.cos.hp.com
Goldberg
>
>I've never really missed TTL metering with the 500CM. I need to use a light
>meter with the guy anyway, so don't mind using a flash meter.
>Actually, I'm so slow with the Hassy that I can use guide numbers!
>
TTL flash metering, which is the forte of the Hasselblad 503CX, really
pays off when you're using filters/diffusers over the lens, when bounce
or diffused flash is employed, or when using extension tubes. Portable flash
systems, such as the Metz models, employ the SCA system of dedication.
This is a common standard shared by several manufacturers and is popular
in Europe. For example, I can use my Metz 60CT-2 in a TTL/dedicated
mode with two different Nikons (SCA-543) or buy different inexpensive
SCA cords and tie it in with the 503CX or cameras from other makers.
On the bounce flash situation . . . Flash auto sensors get easily fooled
by light off the ceiling, resulting in underexposed subjects. These
auto sensors also get spazzed when you're close to the subject.
So the importance of TTL flash metering in medium format depends on
your anticipated use of the camera.
Randall A. Mihara
>pays off when you're using filters/diffusers over the lens, when bounce
>or diffused flash is employed, or when using extension tubes. Portable flash
You might also consider a Polaroid back for preliminary exposure tests.
I personally am not really impressed with TTL. Although it is a definite
improvement over auto-sensors, I often found that TTL will be fooled if you
happen to do unusual photos like backlit subjects.
Randy Mihara
rmi...@ocf.berkeley.edu
Andrew Kwan
>I think one of the main factor in deciding what medium format system
>to buy is cost. If cost is not a problem, I suggest you check out
>the new Rollei 6008 (6x6 format). It has a very sophisticated built in
>TTL metering offering spot/multispot meterings plus a **whole lot more**,
>and of course Carl Zeiss optics. I think it is basically a high tech
>alternative to a Hassy. I did have the opportunity to play with one,
>and God, it is a wonderful camera. Do check it out, but you might
>regret doing it...
The Rollei 6008 better be a great camera. I think the list price is
about $4800!! If you like Rollei but don't have the bucks, I've seen
some used Rollei SLX's for as low as $750. Note that the non-TLR
Rollei cameras have a built-in motor drive, ni-cad battery pack, and
the Zeiss optics (in other words, pretty damn nice).
As for myself, I have a Bronica SQ-A that I am extremely fond of. With
the speed grip, it has to be one of the easiest cameras to handle --
so easy that it is sometimes hard to believe that it's supposed to be
a clunky, medium format SLR.
Andrew Kwan
Huay-Yong Wang
>The Rollei 6008 better be a great camera. I think the list price is
I think you can get them for around $4000 from one of those mail order
places like B&H and I saw one used for sale in Shutterbug for about $3400.
Actually it is not that expensive compared to a fully equiped Hassy,
remember for $4000 you get a body with built in *very* sophisticated
TTL meter and motor drive, WL finder,a film back, 80mm Carl Zeiss lens,
nicad battery pack with rapid charger.., i.e. it comes basically "loaded"
for a medium format camera.
- Huay-Yong
david.n.horn
>would like to get comments from people on the various ones out there.
Apart from the various SLRs mentioned so far you also might want to consider
a few other options.
First, of course, is the old TLR. You can pick up a used Rolliflex with a
2.8 Planar lens for $400 to $600, which will give the ultimate optical quality
with no flexibility.
The Mamiya TLRs cost less, and take interchangable lenses.
For well under $100 you can get a brand new Chinese (Great Wall?) TLR, including
leather case, that has gotten some great reviews for lens quality.
Next there is the folding camera. For lightweight convenience they are hard to
beat. Fuji used to make a folding 6 by 4.5 (65mm lens?) with built-in exposure
meter that I would love to have.
Then there is the press type of rangefinder camera. They take interchangable
lenses and backs. Example include the Mamiya Press 23, and the Graflex XLRF.
XLs can be picked up at flea markets for a couple of hundred bucks, and a wide
range of lenses and backs are available.
Last, but not least, is the "Technical" camera, such as the Linhof Technica,
the Graflex Crown & Speed Graphic 23, and the Horseman 980, 985 & VHR (VRH?).
I have a Horseman 985. It is a folding camera with bellows. Interchangable
lenses attach via a "Lens Board" (you can easily make your own). All three
makes of camera take compatible backs. I have three 6 by 9 (8 exposures on 120
film) backs that I use for slide, color neg, and B&W neg film. You can also
get 6 by 4.5 and 6 by 6 backs. The camera allows all movements of the front and
back, e.g. rise, shift, swing, tilt. etc., so you can fine tune your image in
a way you cannot with an SLR. The camera also has a bright-line viewfinder
with bright-line frames for different length lenses, and a coupled rangefinder.
For the coupled rangefinder to work, you need a cam for each lens.
When you want to take your time, you mount the camera on a tripod, and compose
on a ground-glass back. Then you susbstitute a film back and make an exposure.
When you want to work fast, you can keep the film back on the camera, and
work it like a press camera with the viewfinder and rangefinder.
As for opinions, I like my Horseman a lot. It is much better made than the
Graflex and lighter than the Linhof. It has more range in the movements too.
I think that with the latest advances in film quality, a medium format SLR
is hard to justify, but a technical camera offers so much more flexibility and
image control, as to make it worth the extra weight and cost. If you really
want the ultimate image quality, go for large format.
Dave Horn
Brian Godfrey
-Last, but not least, is the "Technical" camera, such as the Linhof Technica,
Yes, and it just so happens that I have one for sale...
--
--Brian M. Godfrey
Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
{uunet|ogicse|tektronix}!sequent!brian
sequent!br...@cse.ogi.edu