Bronica... or Hasselblad?

[Trond]

There must be more to it than one just being more expensive.
And there is.

Yes indeed!

It says Hasselblad, Carl Zeiss, Made in Sweden, and Made in Germany on one and Bronica, Zenzanon and Made in Japan on the the other.

And frankly, I think this whole discussion is getting pretty pointless. In the end, the photographs one is supposed to make are much more important than the equipment used to make them.

 

[Q.G.]

And frankly, I think this whole discussion is getting pretty pointless. In the end, the photographs one is supposed to make are much more important than the equipment used to make them.

The discussion is about what equipment to get to make those more important photographs.

So how can we keep this to the point while at the same time saying that the choice of equipment is not to the point?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Dropping a camera 1.5m on to the ground is normal use?

The camera was on a tripod that toppled over when my attention was diverted.

Tom

 

[Q.G.]

I never said that a Bronica was cheaper because it is worse quality....I think that is what you said in your last sentence......:rolleyes:

It says what is says: the only thing the Bronica appears to have going for it (comparatively) is that it is cheaper.

I would love to know if you ever even held a Bronica in your hands, or used one. If so, please explain which part appears cheap?

I have indeed, yes.
I never had a habit of just handing over money for the first thing i come across.


I will indeed explain which part appears cheap to me.

But first, since it was not quite understood, point out that cheapness, cost, should not be the important thingy it is made out to be here (read my first reply again).
I think that far too much importance is put on the small (but real, yes) difference in price.

But since you ask: the entire thing.
Or rather, i was not impressed by it. Not because it appeared cheap (you'll understand, i hope, it is not a very important consideration to me), but there was nothing about it that could convince me it was something i would want to use.

And i do not have money to burn either, no.
That's why i rather spend it on something that holds the least chance of letting me down.
And that's also why recommendations like "reasonable money" immediately make me wary. If that is all there is that can be said for something, being less expensive ...

 

[Trond]

It says what is says: the only thing the Bronica appears to have going for it (comparatively) is that it is cheaper.

Let's turn that around: the only thing the Hasselblad appears to have going for it is that it is more expensive, especially all the lenses and accessories outside of the basic kit.

 

[paul_c5x4]

To be fair, Hasselblad has a couple of other points in it's favour.. The company is still producing the 503 system and digital backs are available should you ever desire to go that route. There is also the religious aspect to consider

 

[André E.C.]

http://araxfoto.com/cameras/arax-cm-mlu/

To the OP, take this into consideration if you're on a tight budget, at least you can have spare parts and "service" for it.

After all, they are all copies of the Swedish "real thing", aren't they?


Cheers and good luck for your choice.



André

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think I've posted many times here and in other threads what I think the attractions of the Bronica S2a and SQ systems are aside from cost, but I wouldn't discount the cost of exotic lenses and accessories as a minor factor. After all, I can take better photographs with the 40mm and 500mm lenses I have in my bag than the ones I'm not going to be able to afford any time soon (this aside from the fair possibility that the Nikkor-O 40mm/f:4.0 of the early 1970s may be a better lens than the 40mm Distagon of the same era). The ideal situation, if one were limiting oneself to 6x6, would probably be to have a basic Hassy kit and a Bronica for everything else, if one doesn't mind dealing with two systems.

If I can afford five backs for a Bronica S2a (which are incidentally 120/220 switchable) and not for a Hasselblad, then I can more easily use the Zone System with the Bronica. Now I usually shoot large format under conditions where I'm likely to be using the Zone System to determine development, but before I started shooting LF, the S2a gave me that possibility, and I would argue that the ability to match the contrast of the neg to the brightness range of the scene and to the print medium is photographically more important than having a slightly better lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Also, forgot to add, if you're going to be shooting hand held quite a bit, the SQ-A with speed grip handles so wonderfully, adding a shutter release for your forefinger and winder for thumb on a right handed grip. Hasselblad does not offer anything similar, their grip is left handed which I just find strange. Just something to think about.

Ergonomic, comfortable and natural.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

Let's turn that around: the only thing the Hasselblad appears to have going for it is that it is more expensive, especially all the lenses and accessories outside of the basic kit.

1) You obviously did not read my earlier posting in which I compared and contrasted a number of points. Followed by Q.G. and others.

2) While the advantages of the Hasselblad build up to be significant, the cost difference is incremental.

3) The thread is about the OP collecting data and opinions, and he clearly states that if he bought the Bronica [A good camera in my not so humble opinion] he would still probably lust for a Hasselblad.

The decision is his.

Steve

 

[JRJacobs]

Lets's put all this talk of "expensive" in persepective. I just priced out a 500cm kit with 2 backs, WLF, and 3 *T lenses (50mm, 80mm, and 150mm). Total price = $1,143 (photo attached). That is the price of an entry-level DSLR with a crappy lens. It is also the approximate market price of a Rolleiflex 2.8f, which has only one lens (also an 80mm planar, same as the Hasselblad).

The fact is that used Hasselblad systems are a complete bargain these days. See the attached photo for proof.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lets's put all this talk of "expensive" in persepective. I just priced out a 500cm kit with 2 backs, WLF, and 3 *T lenses (50mm, 80mm, and 150mm). Total price = $1,143 (photo attached). That is the price of an entry-level DSLR with a crappy lens. It is also the approximate market price of a Rolleiflex 2.8f, which has only one lens (also an 80mm planar, same as the Hasselblad).

The fact is that used Hasselblad systems are a complete bargain these days. See the attached photo for proof.

Thus dies another myth that Hasselblad must be expensive.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[JRJacobs]

Thus dies another myth that Hasselblad must be expensive.

Thanks,
Steve

Yep, time to change your tagline Steve.

 

[AgentX]

The KEH prices on Hassy over the past few months have made my jaw drop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yep, time to change your tagline Steve.

But it is still true because I have the 903 SWC 38mm, 50mm CF, 80mm CF, 150mm CF and the 250mm CF.

On the other hand, I added up the cost for all the Hasselblad equipment including eight filters and four extension tubes ... that I have and it is still totals less than the top of the line Nikon or Cannon DSLRs. So it is all relative.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

Let's turn that around: the only thing the Hasselblad appears to have going for it is that it is more expensive, especially all the lenses and accessories outside of the basic kit.

So where in this thread has an argument been made for Hasselblad based on that it is more expensive?
And while looking, count the times that the fact that the Bronicas costs less is put forward.
See what i mean?


Anyway. Before someone thinks i hate Bronicas: though they are not the thing for me, i don't.
Just have issues with this cost-thingy.

 

[JRJacobs]

QG is correct. It seems to be one of the MAIN arguments for Bronica is that it costs less.

So if saving a few $$ is your primary criteria for camera purchase, by all means get the Bronica. Personally, my criteria is lens quality, durability, ergonomics, ease of use, and availability/wide selection of components. That is why I own a Hasselblad and not a Bronica.

 

[Robert Budding]

I can't really say if a Bronica is less dependable than a Hassie - I suspect it is just as good in this regard.

However, the lenses on the Hasselblad are superior to the Bronica. For me, that is what matters more. You can pick up a good 500C or CM kit with 80mm Planar, back etc for around $500. If you need more accessories, get them over time. In the meantime, the 80mm Planar is one heck of a lens if you have to be stuck with just one. I suspect if you like Hasselblad, and are only considering the Bronica because it is cheaper, you will always feel like you "settled", and will likely end up getting a Hasselblad anyway. Save yourself the trouble and get it in the first place.

You're bing influenced by the placebo effect. Actual tests show that Bronica lenses are excellent, too.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

The 'blad is more expensive, so it must be better! And it is more expensive, even if JR can assemble a beater 'blad for a bit over $1,000.

 

[c6h6o3]

The KEH prices on Hassy over the past few months have made my jaw drop.

Literally nickels on the dollar as compared to new. B&H lists the 50mm CFi for $4,023.00 and the 150mm for $3,308.00. Even their used price for the 150 is well over $1,000.00.

At this point I might as well keep it, since I can't get enough for my whole Hassy rig to buy even a basic full frame digicam.

 

[JRJacobs]

You're bing influenced by the placebo effect.

The 'blad is more expensive, so it must be better!

Nope, I'm being influenced by having actually shot with both systems. I prefer Hasselblad. I see the difference in the darkroom when I am making prints.

BTW - Hasselblad is still in business; Bronica went out of business in 2004. Even with their less expensive cameras, they still couldn't compete.

 

[David_A]

BTW - Hasselblad is still in business; Bronica went out of business in 2004. Even with their less expensive cameras, they still couldn't compete.

Bronica were taken over by Tamron, it was Tamron who pulled the plug it had nothing to do with not been able to compete with Hasselblad.

David

 

[Q.G.]

The 'blad is more expensive, so it must be better!

See how silly this monetary line of reasoning is?

 

[Q.G.]

Bronica were taken over by Tamron, it was Tamron who pulled the plug it had nothing to do with not been able to compete with Hasselblad.

Yes...

Tamron pulled the plug because their bank accounts weren't large enough to hold the massive amounts of money selling Bronicas produced.

Just like Kodak discontinued Kodachrome to spite the billions of people who bought truck loads of the stuff every week.

 

[abstraxion]

Q.G.:

While I have no doubt that Hasselblads are superior, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to assume that the continued existence of a product or company proves its superiority? Especially considering that we're on a forum where we use stuff that WE think is better than digital, yet is continually on the brink of discontinuation (black and white films/papers, Ilfochrome, RA-4 chemistry, etc.)?

 

[Sirius Glass]

While I have no doubt that Hasselblads are superior, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to assume that the continued existence of a product or company proves its superiority?

If Hasselblad [Leica, Nikon, Canon] had been a camera that morphed into a new body and lens mount every few years rather than a well thought out and evolving system, then no it would not have lasted.

Steve