Bronica... or Hasselblad?

[Mark Fisher]

I bought my 50 and 150 from KEH (along with other stuff) and always had a great experience. I think they are nearly always worth the small (if any) premium they might charge compared to ebay. Realize that any of these may be due for a CLA sometime soon.

Regarding the lenses, I wouldn't sweat the C vs CF vs...... too much. If you are going to use a shade and stop down to f8 or more, I suspect that the difference would be pretty minimal.

Also, as part of the original post, you mentioned your motivation is to get a smaller camera. I had a C220 kit and I can say that the kit was smaller and lighter than my Hasselblad kit. The Mamiya lenses are so small that the kit ends up small and light. That said, I'd never go back to the Mamiya due to the ergonomics and optics.

 

[JRJacobs]

Parts for a C lens are getting hard to find, but there are Hasselblad repair people [David Odess, I believe, that can fix them. http://www.david-odess.com/]

There are not parts problems with the CF lenses.

Steve

Steve -

I've never heard of a Synchro Compur in a Hassy lens breaking and needing new parts. They can need a CLA, but broken parts? Furthermore, there are tons of synchro compur shutters around - it is one of the most common shutters ever used - the ones used in Hasselblad lenses are not specific to Hasselblad. I know ten different repairmen here in LA alone that can overhaul a Synchro Compur in a Hassy lens - it is not difficult to find one.

I guess one should avoid buying Rolleiflexes too, as they all have 50 year old Synchro Compurs and no-one makes new parts for them?

I can think of certain advantages to the CF lenses, but optical quality and "shutter servicability" are not included.

 

[Q.G.]

C *T lens is just fine. The only difference in the CF is the type of shutter used. The lens is the same design, with the same coatings

A C T* lens is indeed fine.

But the difference between it and a CF lens are more than the shutter.

The C lens has an all metal barrel, with a knurled ridge that serves as focussing ring.
The CF lens has a rubber grip surface, like most lenses.


The C lens has shutterspeed and aperture rings coupled by default.
There is a tab which you need to push towards the rear of the lens to disengage the two and be able to set shutterspeeds independently.
When you do, you must set the desired shutterspeed against the aperture you want to use, then release the interlock release, and move both until the combination is opposite the mark (i.e. set).
It can happen that the two rings are set such that you can't move the desired shutterspeed against the aperture you want, and you then have to set a different combination first, lock the two rings together again and move both, push that tab again and have another go.

On the CF lens, both rings move independently by default, and you can set either separately.
You can still lock the two to move as one (keeping the set EV value constant( if you so wish by pushing a little button.


The C lens has a little tab that when pushed closes the diaphragm to the aperture selected (DOF preview).
It then stays closed, unless you move the aperture ring to the maximum aperture (which may not be possible in one go), after which you need to set the right aperture and shutterspeed again.
The CF has a sliding tab, that when pushed down closes the diaphragm, and when allowed to pop up again opens the thingy again.


The C lens has a flash synch-mode setting tab too, allowing you to set either X (electronic flash) or M for medium speed flash bulbs.
The same tab also sets a self timer.
The CF lens only offers X-synch, and no self timer.


The C lens has two pointers that move when you change aperture setting, indicating the near and far limits of the depth of field on the distance scale.
The CF lens has the DOF markings commonly found on lenses.


C lenses (most of them anyway, including the 80 mm lens) have a bayonet 50 filter and hood mount. The CF lenses have (in majority) a larger bayonet 60 mount.


So more than just the shutter. Not all improvements (though most of the things that make a CF lens are), but quite a few differences.

The shutter is different too, as was mentioned.
The C lenses use Synchro Compur shutters made by Deckel. Deckel closed shop, and a new shutter had to be found. Another Zeiss Foundation company, Alfred Gauthier, produced a Prontor shutter.
The Prontor differs from the Synchro Compur in that it does not have the selftimer and flash synch choice.

But also in that the Prontor has a feature that Hasselblad came up with: a setting that switches the shutter off ("F mode"), leaving only the diaphragm to work.
It helps when a CF lens is used on a focal plane shutter camera with instant mirror return. A C lens' shutter remains closed until the camera is wound, so despite instant return mirror in those cameras, there is no viewfinder image. Woth the shutter in the CF lens switched off, there of course is.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A C T* lens is indeed fine.

But the difference between it and a CF lens are more than the shutter.

The C lens has an all metal barrel, with a knurled ridge that serves as focussing ring.
The CF lens has a rubber grip surface, like most lenses.

...

Much better described that I did, but then I was trying to keep it simple. One can get whelmed [a perfectly good word in this case] with details about Hasselblad that someone new to Hasselblads does not need to know when determining whether or not to buy a Hasselblad and C versus C* versus CF versus CFE versus CFi lenses.

Q.G. has pointed out all the important differences.

The C lenses, as Q.G. pointed out, use Bay-50 filters and lens hoods which can be very hard to find and therefore expensive. The CF and up lens, for the most part, use Bay-60 filters and lens hoods which are easy to find and less expensive.

Steve

 

[JRJacobs]

Sorry QC, I shouldn't have stated "the only difference..."

Maybe "the main difference" is more appropriate. My point is that they both have the same optics. If I were on the budget of the OP, I would get a C*T lens, not a CF lens: a C*T lens costs about half the price, and will deliver the same photo quality. Other than the bayonet size, the rest of the differences boil down to ergonomics. I own both C*T and CF lenses - I wouldn't say the CF's are necessarily easier or better to use, they are just different.

Also, Bay 50 hoods, filters (and better yet, Bay 50 step rings) are easily found all over the internet for cheap prices. They are not exactly expensive nor hard to find. Do a quick search on KEH or Ebay.

 

[hovis]

I agree except Wildi's Hasselblad Manual 5th edition will be better for your needs. You can find it on the internet at a decent price.

Hasselblad is a system that has interchangeable parts dating back to 1957. The choice of parts is large.
Bronica has a system but it is not as extensive as Hasselblad.

Hasselblad is still in production and part are available.
Bronica is not in production.

Hasselblad is easy to get repaired.
Bronica may have parts problems sooner.

You do not have to buy everything at once a Hasselblad 501 or 503 and an 80 mm lens is sufficient.
Similar for Bronica.

If you buy a Hasselblad, you will not look back and say, "Gee, I wish I had bought a Bronica.
By your own admission, the opposite is not true.

Hasselblad is a system with many options and a path forward to digital if that is where you go in the future.
Bronica does not have digital in the future.

I would recommend getting a Hasselblad, two A12 backs, an 80mm CF lens and if you really want later a 45º angle prism with a light meter [PME]. There is no reason to spend the extra money for the lenses with the interface, CFi. Too keep the cost down get the CF lenses; the CFE lenses maybe better, but you have a budget to attend. I have CF lenses and while CFE lenses are newer and "better", I am very happy with the CF lenses.

When I first started into serious photography I wanted a Bronica. Now that I can afford either a Bronica or a Hasselblad. I choose the Hasselblad.

Steve

What he said.

 

[Q.G.]

My point is that they both have the same optics.

Indeed they do.

It's a thing about if two things are the same in one respect, the things in which they differ perhaps being more interesting if you want to decide between the two?

You mention another difference: price.
It's not that big a difference really, though always important.
I wouldn't hesitate, but buy a good C lens if that was what funds permit.

Though i do think the CFs are 'better', much easier to use.



You are right too that Steve painted a too gloomy picture when he said that bayonet 50 accessories are hard to find and expensive. I think just the opposite, Steve!
The supply of bayonet 50 bits and pieces is good, prices very reasonable. Cheaper than bayonet 60 bits.

 

[randyB]

I had this exact same question in late 1981. I had the good fortune to be able to (crudely) test 4 different systems. Blad, Bronica SQ ? I think, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya 645 1000s model. I tested 3 lenses of each wide, normal and tele. I used the same film/developer combo. The results showed me that the Blad was best, Bronica a close 2nd, then RB67 and the 645 just didn't impress me at all. So in 1982 I bought my 500CM, I'm still using it today, no problems. Bronica is a very good system, but Hasselblad is a great system.

 

[brian steinberger]

I would say ultimately this choice comes down to two things, your experience with medium format and your budget. If you've shot manual medium format cameras before and are atleast a bit familiar with them then either system would be great. If you're just getting your feet wet in MF I would really recommend the Bronica system. You can pick up an SQ-a with 80/2.8 PS, 120 back, and prism for around $400. That is quite a bit cheaper than the Hasselblad equivalent. Also, then if you decide that medium format or square format or whatever is not for you, you won't have much invested. But, vice versa; say you love the square format, initially you can spend that extra money that you saved from buying the Bronica and buy film and paper (if shooting B&W). A camera can only get you so far. Experience in shooting film and printing especially is what is going to make your photographs sing. Then if things continue and you've always dreamed of getting the Hasselblad, then do so. Either camera would certainly be capable. Don't let yourself be fooled when people talk about Hasselblad lenses being superior to Bronica. The differences are so minute, and should be saved for those with nothing else to do but run lines and resolutions tests. Buy what you can afford and have fun!

 

[brian steinberger]

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.

 

[André E.C.]

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.

Strange? Not at all, LOGICAL, if the grip was right-sided, how could you operate the camera properly?:confused:


Cheers



André

 

[PhotoJim]

Two years ago I had the same dilemma. With the budget I had, I could get a Bronica SQ-A, a 50, an 80 and a 150 plus a couple of 120 backs and a 220 back. I could only get a low-end Hasselblad body, an 80 and a single film back for the same money. I went with Bronica. I was worried that I'd wish I had the Hasselblad instead.

You know what? I don't really wish I had the Hasselblad. I'll put the thousand bucks I'd need to "upgrade" into a carbon fiber tripod instead.

The lenses are terrific, the gear is reliable and it's affordable. In fact, just today I got a shipment from KEH containing a metering prism and a waistlevel finder (and an SQ-B body that I got because, with the waist finder, was only $14 more than a waist finder alone). The images I get out of this system are excellent.

If I can't be satisfied with gear of this quality, I should just quit photography. And at the cost of this gear, I can afford to have to replace some of the parts. So far I haven't had to.

 

[abstraxion]

Quick question about the Bronica SQ system:

What the living HECK is up with the WLF prices? Why is it that WLFs are being sold for as much as metered prisms on both eBay and KEH? Weren't most of these systems sold with WLF? At the prices they want for them ($165 for a BGN rated WLF!!!), it'd be about as cheap to take a community college course in metal and plastic fabrication and contract a plant in Japan to make the stuff for me. I kid, but seriously, what's the deal?

On another note, the lenses are so cheap it's kind of unbelievable. I can almost buy a 50, 80, and a 110 for the same price as a decent 80 with the Hasselblad system. That's kinda swaying me...

edit: Also, do you need the 120-I back to use a metered prism?

 

[Shangheye]

I think it is simple, and has already been stated. Very little differnce in quality, alot of difference in caché. If you want a significant (amount of gear e.g. polaroid backs etc) system for reasonable money, then it's the Bronica. If you just want a camera one or two backs and couple of lenses, then it's the Hassy. Don't stay up worrying about the rest...K

 

[Shangheye]

Quick question about the Bronica SQ system:

What the living HECK is up with the WLF prices? Why is it that WLFs are being sold for as much as metered prisms on both eBay and KEH? Weren't most of these systems sold with WLF? At the prices they want for them ($165 for a BGN rated WLF!!!), it'd be about as cheap to take a community college course in metal and plastic fabrication and contract a plant in Japan to make the stuff for me. I kid, but seriously, what's the deal?

On another note, the lenses are so cheap it's kind of unbelievable. I can almost buy a 50, 80, and a 110 for the same price as a decent 80 with the Hasselblad system. That's kinda swaying me...

edit: Also, do you need the 120-I back to use a metered prism?

WLF's are just a fad at the moment. Just wait till the right one comes along or buy a camera with it already on. I bid originally for one and was aoutbid two years ago at GBP70. Two weaks later I got it for GBP36 on another bid.

As I said before...Bronica is a whole lot of money for you buck.

All SQ backs work with the metered prisms....


Rgds, Kal

 

[paul_c5x4]

Quick question about the Bronica SQ system:

edit: Also, do you need the 120-I back to use a metered prism?

No. You can use any of the SQ-A backs with a metered prism. The older SQ-A backs have the ISO dial on top which makes it a little fiddly to turn with a prism on (no prob if the back is taken off first). The SQ-Ai backs have the ISO dial on the rear and also add a secondary compensation dial - Much easier to tweak when mounted on a camera.

The only one to avoid is the SQ-B back - This one lacks an ISO dial and connections for metering.

 

[Q.G.]

If you want a significant (amount of gear e.g. polaroid backs etc) system for reasonable money, then it's the Bronica. If you just want a camera one or two backs and couple of lenses, then it's the Hassy.

I don't agree.

All this talk about money displays, i think, rather short term thinking.

If you want a full set right now, then yes, get the cheaper option.

But if you want a set to last a long time, you'll know that you will be able to afford the (only slightly) more expensive option too.
Even though you perhaps can't afford to get everything you would want straight away.
You can have more than you ever want or need, without ever feeling financial pain, if only you can be a little patient.

And if the cheaper option is chosen because it is cheaper, while all along you'd rather have the other option (i.e. if you indeed are impatient) ... You'll spend money now, and still want to have the other thingies.
So sooner or later you will have to spend money again.


Think about this: if when comparing two systems, one of them has to be recommended for being "reasonable money" (which appears to be the thing the Bronica has going for it), might that be sign of it not having anything else going for it (comparatively)?
Is that not telling you what best to do?

 

[Steve Smith]

And if the cheaper option is chosen because it is cheaper, while all along you'd rather have the other option (i.e. if you indeed are impatient) ... You'll spend money now, and still want to have the other thingies.

This is indeed true but sometimes the cheaper option is the only option at the time.

A few years ago when I wanted a medium format SLR system I could only afford a Bronica ETRS in its basic form with waist level finder, one film back and standard lens.

I'm not sure how much of a Hasselblad sytem I could have bought for the same money - perhaps just a film back and the waist level finder. Not much use playing around with those until you can afford body and a lens! At least the cheap Bronica option got me something I could shoot film with.

You are right though about always wanting something better. I did eventually get a three lens, two film back RB67 kit which is what I really wanted.


Steve.

 

[Trond]

If when comparing two systems, one of them has to be recommended for being "reasonable money" (which appears to be the thing the Bronica has going for it)

I don't think that's what has been said. The issue is that Bronica and Hasselblad are high quality cameras with good lenses, and in essence very similar camera systems.

So you have two choices, and they both do the same thing equally well, but one alternative costs less than the other. Why choose the more expensive one?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have my doubts about the build quality of Bronica camera bodies after one of mine took a fairly light fall from about 1.5 meters into soft ground, which distorted the tripod socket, and bottom plate of the camera.

Tom

 

[Steve Smith]

I have my doubts about the build quality of Bronica camera bodies after one of mine took a fairly light fall from about 1.5 meters into soft ground, which distorted the tripod socket, and bottom plate of the camera.

I think that is another good point. They are both capable of good results but you can only use one of them to drive tent pegs into the ground. If the Bronica is handled carefully it will be fine but the Hasselblad will probably last longer in normal use.


Steve.

 

[Q.G.]

I don't think that's what has been said. The issue is that Bronica and Hasselblad are high quality cameras with good lenses, and in essence very similar camera systems.

So you have two choices, and they both do the same thing equally well, but one alternative costs less than the other. Why choose the more expensive one?

Why indeed.

But if the two are indeed "very similar" and "do the same thing equally well", how would you explain that many people indeed bought "the more expensive one"?

How do you explain Hasselblad's reputation (without fail - here too - Bronica is seen as "an alternative to", i.e. second choice)?

And why, in this troubled market, is Bronica no longer with us, while you can still get "the more expensive one"?

All just fancy? Or is there substance to it?
There must be more to it than one just being more expensive.
And there is.

 

[Shangheye]

And if the cheaper option is chosen because it is cheaper, while all along you'd rather have the other option (i.e. if you indeed are impatient) ... You'll spend money now, and still want to have the other thingies.
So sooner or later you will have to spend money again.


Think about this: if when comparing two systems, one of them has to be recommended for being "reasonable money" (which appears to be the thing the Bronica has going for it), might that be sign of it not having anything else going for it (comparatively)?
Is that not telling you what best to do?

Not quite what I said. I believe the quality is just as good in terms of images (and I stated that). I don't beleive the build is any better, and certainly bronica's are still repairable, so the that arguement is in valid.

My main point was; given the above, then the question becomes more about what the OP wants from the system for starting point (much as your comment about patience).

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:

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?

K

 

[Shangheye]

I think that is another good point. They are both capable of good results but you can only use one of them to drive tent pegs into the ground. If the Bronica is handled carefully it will be fine but the Hasselblad will probably last longer in normal use.


Steve.

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

 

[Shangheye]

Why indeed.

But if the two are indeed "very similar" and "do the same thing equally well", how would you explain that many people indeed bought "the more expensive one"?

How do you explain Hasselblad's reputation (without fail - here too - Bronica is seen as "an alternative to", i.e. second choice)?

And why, in this troubled market, is Bronica no longer with us, while you can still get "the more expensive one"?

All just fancy? Or is there substance to it?
There must be more to it than one just being more expensive.
And there is.

Success is often to do with branding in my experience. I can own a Ferrari, but sure as hell bet that a Honda will outdo or match it in reliability, efficiency, and a lot cheaper to buy but perhaps with a tad less looks and "look good" factor...and all those cheap extras will be alot more useful when (if) I have a call for them.

I am not arguing for a Bronica or a Hasselblad, I think they are both great cameras....the OP needs to decide what he is looking for in a system.

K