Bronica SQ-A Strikes Back!

[JWMster]

So my "new" Bronica SQ-A has a nit or two. Mostly, I think it's in the SQ-B back that came with an SQ body I'm keeping as a source of parts. The SQ-B back has a tendency to fall off the camera... and has wormed it's way free twice. Sweeeeeet! More recently, it seems to facilitate shooting with the dark slide still in.... call it thrill number two. Research on this site suggests this is a separate back problem. So I'm thinking that after this current roll, time is probably to call it quits with the SQ-B back. Sound 'bout right? (I've a very nice SQ-I back that doesn't seem to suffer these issues).

The other thing I've noticed is that with the Speed Grip in use, my neck strap (Peak Design "seat belt" version) has a tendency to get in the way of the film advance and foul the 2nd stroke. Again.... Sweeeeeet? Not. This leaves me wondering whether anyone actually uses neck straps on these monsters? Clearly sizing up to a Peak Design from my preferred Gordy leather "thong" was a non-starter. Purpose? Simply to have "insurance" against mishandling rather than to wear it like John Belushi's date for the Wild and Crazy Czeckoslovakain Guys... and break my neck (or do a face plant) due to the poundage (it ain't really that bad... just sayin').

 

[voceumana]

I've got an SQ-Ai and an SQ-B body; SQ-A and SQ-Ai backs, but no SQ-B back; no problems with either of these backs falling off either of these bodies, and no issues with shooting with the dark slide inserted.

The backs are held on, of course, with the hooks at the top, and two notched tabs slots at the bottom--inspect both of these. The button on the body to release the back pulls catches out of the notched slots at the bottom, and I suspect these are the source of that problem. If your notches are worn, it might explain the insecure attachment. Compare them to your good Ai back.

The back communicates the presence of the dark slide through a pin within a small clylinder. With the back off, and no film, you might be able to verify that this pin moves when the dark slide is removed.

I think all of the inserts can be used with any of the hinged holders, so if you can narrow the problem(s) down to the insert or the holder, you might find a replacement for the one that isn't working. I've seen these sorts of parts go at pretty low prices.

For me, I'm only going with Ai backs for any future purchases; I like the location of the speed dial better.

 

[JWMster]

Thanks! Are those the ones with the dial at the top? I think the I-Backs have the dial at the back.

 

[mshchem]

I have 3 SQ-AIs . All 3 have the motor drive if required . The neat speed winder that's neato on an ETRSI , is clumsy on the SQ bodies . This is the nicest motor square camera I've used . No strap around your neck just the hand strap that comes with the motor .

 

[voceumana]

The SQ-A has the speed dial on the top, the Ai, on the back; the B has no speed dial. I don't know about the A, but if it has a dial, it would be on the top.

 

[JWMster]

Dead Link Removed
I have one of these puppies. KEH lists these as 120-I Film Backs. Not sure which they were made for, but this one seems to work as designed. It's the SQ-B with no dial that blows. I'm planning to replace it.

 

[JWMster]

Re-tested this a.m. and the SQ-I film back works fine. The ISO dial in the image attached last night (11:31pm) rotates kind of weirdly, but it works and rotates fully. Not sure it integrates with anything however... no matter what it seems to suggest. Maybe if I had an AE finder it would. Dunno. Anyway I tried to find a photo of the SQ-B 120 back but could only find the 220... so scratched that. Simply know that if my experience is any indicator, be careful with these more limited backs.

FWIW, looks as though the SQ-I backs with the ISO dial on the back are a later model than the SQ backs that had the ISO dial on the top. Curious. If there is a difference between these in terms of integration with an AE finder on an SQ-A or SQ-Ai, that'd be good information to have. Unfortunately... I don't have it and cannot advise.

Let me close this thread with the thought that I was mistaken in the way these film backs work and using the dark slide for anything OTHER than removing the backs is not the way it is supposed to work. I'd been using the darkslide thinking it locked the shutter. Yes, it is supposed to and works that way on the 120-I backs at least, but the manual clearly states the dark slides are to be removed WHENEVER the back is attached to the camera and THEN rotate the shutter button to lock the shutter. Okay... that solves the mystery of separating backs. Gee.... new-to-me cameras really do seem to need a lot of playtime for orientation. Have I blown a number of rolls in the process? Yep. Ouch! Will want to STOP doing that.

Thanks everyone for your notes. Thanks to the rest of you folks who knew better and let me figure this out on my own. Yes, that is probably the only way most of us retain and really learn. So I think I can say now (at last) I have and maybe the SQ-B back isn't such a waste of breath? Maybe. Wouldn't buy one btw. Just saying.

 

[Sjixxxy]

The other thing I've noticed is that with the Speed Grip in use, my neck strap (Peak Design "seat belt" version) has a tendency to get in the way of the film advance and foul the 2nd stroke. Again.... Sweeeeeet? Not. This leaves me wondering whether anyone actually uses neck straps on these monsters? Clearly sizing up to a Peak Design from my preferred Gordy leather "thong" was a non-starter. Purpose? Simply to have "insurance" against mishandling rather than to wear it like John Belushi's date for the Wild and Crazy Czeckoslovakain Guys... and break my neck (or do a face plant) due to the poundage (it ain't really that bad... just sayin').

I use an op/tech uni connector on my SQ-a for the neckstrap and it works great. It adds almost no bulk to the connection point on the body. Although sometimes the pin that slides out to remove the crank when connecting to the grip is loose on my camera will slide out and then jam it up when swings around that connect with the strap lug, but that is just some old worn out camera issue, fixable with some tape.

 

[DWThomas]

SQ-A owner here. I think all of these "system" cameras carry a fair assortment of quirks one has to just sort out and get used to. They are also from an era when there was no technology to ask "Do you want to do xYz" when you flip a lever. Especially the various interlocks are pretty amazing for something done with little bits of metal widgets flipping and poking internally.

I have tried using it hand held, but 99.9% of my shooting the Bronica is on a tripod. (I use my Yashica TLR when I want to hang a 6x6 around my neck!)

I own a speed grip, which I have not used in 9 or 10 years other than to verify that it works -- and also a compendium shade, both acquired during the height of the initial GAS phase. A failure with the first body led to acquisition of two more(!) so I can now actually field two working cameras, as long as each has a different lens and viewfinder. It is really useful when trouble shooting to be able to interchange various components.

I like to think of these sorts of things as adult TinkerToys.

 

[JWMster]

Sjxxxy: Thanks! Yes... rather similar to the Peak Design ringy dingy connector straps attachment, but the bulk may result in fewer foulings. Have to think this one through and try a few things. Like the signature line, btw.
DWT: Like the Tinker Toy analogy. Debugging the camera is one thing. Debugging "me" another and thornier problem. Tripod.... hmmmm. Need to use my own more. Speed grip does seem to make handling easier and I'm giving that a shot for now. My monopod's received some use... and that's a fairly good compromise for casual shooting. But yes, "Kill the fatted beast, bring out the heavy iron... let's use the tripod!" Seems to be much more of a special occasion item for most of us than it should be.

SQ-A comment: I like the camera. For the money... especially. Wonder about whether I "need" the equivalent of a 135mm for 35mm lens... which looks to be about a 225mm in 120 6X6... but have my hands full at the moment so not going there. Do I like the 6X6 frame? Absolutely! I think this was a very good decision. Of course, won't kid you....reading Barry Thornton's "Edge of Darkness" of course I tend to wonder, "Would I like a Rollei ...more? I could get back to my Zeiss lenses then.... " but that thought dies quickly as they seem to be EXTREMELY rare beasts this side of the pond... thankfully removing an expensive "meh" improvement. AND the few notes from fewer users over here (though some years back) seem to suggest some real electronic snafus with the SLX and up bodies. For the most part, seems as though here in the States, we've gone with Hasselblads for MF Zeiss lense holsters instead of Rolleis. Hmmmmmm. Anyway, interestingly enough if I read it right, Rollei - like Ilford before it - has re-constituted itself and its manufacturing in some manner of fashion or other. Who knew? Maybe that explains where Rollei film comes from? The importer likes to suggest they are still making cameras, too.

MF general comment: Have to agree with those who suggested looking through a MF finder would be addictive. Duh and more Duh: Big screen. What's not to like? Close to working out the system for scanning my negs for inkjet printing that I hope will be a step up in terms of wet scans with a DSLR ...which is the only way I know how at the moment. We do what we must (for now).

 

[wiltw]

Wonder about whether I "need" the equivalent of a 135mm for 35mm lens... which looks to be about a 225mm in 120 6X6.

1.5:1 vs. 1:1 ... very different aspect ratios of the frames makes use of the diagonal measure of the frame to be irrelevant! A better basis of comparison is to compare the frame's short dimension

• 135mm (on 135 format) = 5.625X the frame vertical
• 5.625X 56mm (on 6x6) = 315mm

...from the identical camera position, both FL would frame the same vertical scene distance

 

[JWMster]

wiltw: You're making a very very good point, but I'm trying to follow you here: 135mm (focal length) / 24mm (the short dimension on 35mm film)? If I have it right, then by this math the "normal" equivalent of a 50mm lens in 35mm would be a photo length would be 116mm in 120 roll @ 6X6 (56mm)? Re-check just takes the 56mm/24mm of smaller frame lengths for 2.333X. If this tracks, then this makes my 50mm Zenzanon not a 28 equivalent in 135... but something more like a 21mm lens in 135. And the 80mm becomes closer to a 35mm (actually 34.28mm) for 135mm film and... that just doesn't seem quite it, does it?

Perhaps the change in the scale together with the change in the aspect ratio seem to work together in a way that the eye may not necessarily equate in exactly linear ways. Even in the viewfinder... the whole thing is just a lot bigger... and there may be some illusion in this as a result which leads my eye to think a bit differently.

FWIW, the usual math uses as .625 or 1.6X ratio depending on which is chosen as the unknown. I think your math works 24mm with 56mm .4285 and 2.333 respectively. By contrast, comparing diagonals is going to work out closer to .54362 and 1.84 respectively. This is CLOSER to your suggestion than the usual math... but it is still different enough that the conclusion is slightly off... by linear math. Again... I'm holding it's not quite or exactly linear 'cause our eyes aren't exactly linear either as we see it. But if they were, then the 80mm "norm" in 120 is really equivalent to 44mm or thereabouts in 135? Some 135-ers would actually agree with this I think from what I read, and they're the guys who buy 40mm lenses.

On the telephoto end, the 150mm lens in 120 moves closer to a 135 film equivalent of 81.5mm rather than the usual 90mm folks suggest. There seems to be a fair amount of Leica lovers with 75mm, 85mm (ZM) and 90mm's so that the jury is out as to what's the right short-tele/portrait anyway. Some even in SLR-world may prefer 105 or thereabouts (no accounting for taste, huh?).

The whole is incredibly imprecise and much as math is involved, it's a lot more subjective than most of us want to admit. For the same focal length in 135 film I think manufacturers end up with lenses of the same focal length that nevertheless can have slightly different angles of view. Literally boggles the mind.

Finally, there's the doggone scale of the image in the viewfinder and not just the change in aspect ratio. I don't know how to account for this exactly nor have I seen anything, but an 80mm lens in 120 seems to literally slam things right in front of me almost like a telephoto... and yet it's neither a tele nor quite wide either. Crazy. My eyes haven't figured it out.

But... thanks! for making me think about how enchanting the whole of it is.... and how much of the illusion is rolled up into math, but just doesn't quite sort out either... and in the end, maybe this sort of "what is it exactly?" that explains something of the magic of 120 in the confusion of 6X6. Literally... I remain mystified.

 

[jimjm]

I use an op/tech uni connector on my SQ-a for the neckstrap and it works great. It adds almost no bulk to the connection point on the body.

I've used the same strap and connector on my SQ-A for years now, and it's been the best solution I've found for keeping the bulky part of the strap out of the way while shooting. The strap is also really comfortable and secure, as an SQ-A with 45D prism finder, Speed Grip and 250mm lens can be quite a heavy beast!

 

[wiltw]

wiltw: You're making a very very good point, but I'm trying to follow you here: 135mm (focal length) / 24mm (the short dimension on 35mm film)? If I have it right, then by this math the "normal" equivalent of a 50mm lens in 35mm would be a photo length would be 116mm in 120 roll @ 6X6 (56mm)? Re-check just takes the 56mm/24mm of smaller frame lengths for 2.333X. If this tracks, then this makes my 50mm Zenzanon not a 28 equivalent in 135... but something more like a 21mm lens in 135. And the 80mm becomes closer to a 35mm (actually 34.28mm) for 135mm film and... that just doesn't seem quite it, does it?

And now you start to understand why so many folks think 50mm is too long of FL for 135, and prefer to use 35mm FL for their own 'normal'! Instead of that subjective feel, here is the arithmetic behind that point of view...

• 80mm / 56mm = 1.43X as multiplier for medium format 'normal', sees about 7.3' vertically at subject distance of 10'
• 1.43X * 24mm = 34mm as 'same vertical FOV at same camera position' FL, sees about 7' vertically at subject distance of 10'
• 50mm / 24mm = 2.08X, does NOT have 'same vertical FOV at same camera position' FL, sees about 4.7' vertically at subject distance of 10'

So 50mm on 135 format is too 'tight' and requires you to step back 50% farther distance to grab a full length shot of a group of people, than if you did it with 6x6! Putting 35mm FL on the 135 body lets you stand in about the same place for both format bodies. Or you could shoot with 6x7 body (RZ67) and get the same 7.3' vertical FOV with an 80mm lens.

 

[JWMster]

wiltw: I'm one of those who prefers the 35mm as my normal in 135 filmland. Strong case for the 40mm's as norm crowd there. Guess you just shoot a lot and let experience guide what you like. That's what I do at anyrate.

 

[DWThomas]

What I know about some of this is more based on osmosis than research or experience, but my impression is that many Bronica SQ-* folks liked the older S 150mm for portraiture as being a good focal length and ever so slightly softer than the PS 150. That said, the 180mm can focus closer to a subject than the 150 without messing with extension tubes which could also excite some folks. In my own dubious activities the 80mm and 110mm 1:1 Macro are my most used lenses, followed by the 50mm. I also own a PS 150, but seldom use it and as I recall, the 180 (which I do not have) is considerably more pricey, and I would likely use it even less. (But bear in mind I don't even fantasize about being a portrait photographer!)