Mamiya RZ67 or Bronica SQ-Ai

[tron_]

What did you not like about the Bronica?

 

[CGW]

What did you not like about the Bronica?

Didn't say Zeiss anywhere?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

What did you not like about the Bronica?

With the prism that was attached, it was DEFINITELY more bulky than the 500cm with WLF. I also didn't like the amount of knobs and switches it seemed to have. To me, it just felt uncomfortable. It was large, and very cumbersome to handle.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Didn't say Zeiss anywhere?

No, I'm not that much of a fanboy. I don't subscribe to the "only view your images under a microscope to determine quality" group. I'm quite certain that the Bronica would have produced equally good images as my Hassy, but it was strictly a handling thing for me.

 

[CGW]

After lugging a Mamiya RB67 a few days ago, my SQ-B seemed petite. Works as a walk-around kit for me with an extra lens and back. With just a WLF and an 80 or 105mm, it's certainly no backbreaker. "Large" it isn't.

Ergonomics aren't especially wonky: just a shutter speed dial, mirror-up and multiple exposure switches on the body. It is battery-powered, so that buys a check button.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I'm sure for some, it isn't. I just didn't care for it. It wouldn't be my first choice... Neither are Ford's, pc's, or brussel sprouts.

 

[lxdude]

With the prism that was attached, it was DEFINITELY more bulky than the 500cm with WLF. I also didn't like the amount of knobs and switches it seemed to have. To me, it just felt uncomfortable. It was large, and very cumbersome to handle.

It of course was more bulky with the prism finder, which changes the center of gravity, and makes it heavier. The same is true of a Hasselblad with prism finder.
The controls are just in different places, not really more of them. It might just be a matter of what you're used to, and the clearly different feel.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm not gonna knock that.

 

[Tom Hensley]

Awesome! How do you like it so far? I'm hoping I can hold off on buying more gear haha, the only other thing I want for it is a Polaroid back but that won't be for a while I think.

I also bought some Fuji Superia to run through the camera. I use Superia a ton in my 35mm SLRs and it's a comfortable film to work with personally. So excited to get this camera in

So far so good, I think that it is a good example of an RZ but I haven't put it to the test yet. I did find a battery and then I found a gentleman on APUG selling a 50mm ULD... Gah, like I said, tip of the iceberg. Next and hopefully final item for a while will be a nice spot meter, although a couple more backs will probably find their way into the kit.

I haven't decided on which film to put through it first, thinking T-Max or maybe one of the Ilford offerings but I have more research to do on that front. I'd like to settle into one good and available film and really "learn" it.

You will have to post up your impressions when you get a roll through it. I was hoping to get the first roll through it this weekend but the weather isn't what I had hoped and I want my first shoot to be pleasant and relaxed.

 

[sveamarcus]

No, I'm not that much of a fanboy. I don't subscribe to the "only view your images under a microscope to determine quality" group. I'm quite certain that the Bronica would have produced equally good images as my Hassy, but it was strictly a handling thing for me.

I just sold a Bronica SQ kit after getting a Hasselblad instead. I tried a lot of lenses and can simply say it's not very good compared to other systems I've tried. You don't need a microscope to see the difference. I mostly scan at around 3000 DPI (true resolution) and the only really good lens of all I tried is the 80mm, although I didn't like the OOF specular highlights which look SLR-cheap IMO. Contrary to you, I really liked the SQ body and wanted to like the camera but the lenses made me give up on it. Luckily, I like the Nikkor glass for Bronica S and would never give up my EC and S2A Bronicas. I might have kept the SQ for the 80mm if it wasn't for all the great TLR:s out there.

In the end, I'd recommend Chrome Hasselblad over PS lenses. It's not that much more expensive and I'm not sure the advanced coatings in Bronica PS make up for the lesser glass.

 

[tron_]

Well I came home Friday to see the mailman left me a mail slip. I really had to use the bathroom but upon seeing the slip with the tracking number on it, the bathroom could wait. I hopped in my car Dukes of Hazard style through the sunroof (okay maybe I used the door) and drove to the post office.

IT'S HERE

First off, I couldn't believe how good the shape of the camera was. It literally looked brand new. The only give away was the darkslide showed wear from being slid in and out so often (that's what she said?).

I put a couple rolls of Fuji Superia through it and I am waiting to get them developed. I will post the photos asap! I am seriously considering starting to develop my own film since the development times for 120 film all seem to be very similar.

In terms of the weight, it's a big camera but it is nowhere near as heavy as people make it out to be. Maybe I have just been hitting the Wheaties lately but on friday I went for a pretty intense 2.5-3 mile walk and had no problems holding the camera. Really the weight is a non issue to me so I am definitely relieved!

 

[CGW]

I just sold a Bronica SQ kit after getting a Hasselblad instead. I tried a lot of lenses and can simply say it's not very good compared to other systems I've tried. You don't need a microscope to see the difference. I mostly scan at around 3000 DPI (true resolution) and the only really good lens of all I tried is the 80mm, although I didn't like the OOF specular highlights which look SLR-cheap IMO. Contrary to you, I really liked the SQ body and wanted to like the camera but the lenses made me give up on it. Luckily, I like the Nikkor glass for Bronica S and would never give up my EC and S2A Bronicas. I might have kept the SQ for the 80mm if it wasn't for all the great TLR:s out there.

In the end, I'd recommend Chrome Hasselblad over PS lenses. It's not that much more expensive and I'm not sure the advanced coatings in Bronica PS make up for the lesser glass.

Which of all those Bronica S and PS lenses that you tried disappointed you aside from the 80mm(which one)? Funny but Bronica seemed to please a whole lot of people, judging from the SQ series' longevity and the images its optics produced. I like the old Nikkors, too, for the ancient S series but realize they used early 1960s coating technology that was bettered by the later S and PS lenses.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Really the weight is a non issue to me so I am definitely relieved!

Wait until the excitement wears off before you make that statement.

 

[Trond]

I just sold a Bronica SQ kit after getting a Hasselblad instead. I tried a lot of lenses and can simply say it's not very good compared to other systems I've tried. You don't need a microscope to see the difference. I mostly scan at around 3000 DPI (true resolution) and the only really good lens of all I tried is the 80mm, although I didn't like the OOF specular highlights which look SLR-cheap IMO. Contrary to you, I really liked the SQ body and wanted to like the camera but the lenses made me give up on it. Luckily, I like the Nikkor glass for Bronica S and would never give up my EC and S2A Bronicas. I might have kept the SQ for the 80mm if it wasn't for all the great TLR:s out there.

In the end, I'd recommend Chrome Hasselblad over PS lenses. It's not that much more expensive and I'm not sure the advanced coatings in Bronica PS make up for the lesser glass.

Interesting. So you are saying that the differences between Zeiss and Bronica lenses are so great that you would be able to consistently tell them apart in a blind experiment?

Trond

 

[Tom Hensley]

Well I came home Friday to see the mailman left me a mail slip...

Congratulations!! I'm jealous that you have already put some film through yours. Maybe I can this coming weekend.

Agree on developing your own. Planning to do that and scan and only get printed those that I'd be truely proud of. Nice to be able to share even the decent-good shots on the web though.

I'm ok with the weight of the RZ, but I will take 35mm with me hiking and most of my landscape shots are a bit closer to civilization (at least "close enough"). I don't really see how people handhold these though, maybe I just have small hands, pretty sure I'll take 95% of my MF photos off a tripod.

 

[sveamarcus]

Interesting. So you are saying that the differences between Zeiss and Bronica lenses are so great that you would be able to consistently tell them apart in a blind experiment?

I believe I can see where this is going and I'm kindly going to disregard your question. Let me just say it was my very subjective observation. Perhaps it was worded badly and my intention is not to confront anyone - just one other user's highly personal opinion. Take it for what it is and feel free to dismiss it as such.

Which of all those Bronica S and PS lenses that you tried disappointed you aside from the 80mm(which one)? Funny but Bronica seemed to please a whole lot of people, judging from the SQ series' longevity and the images its optics produced. I like the old Nikkors, too, for the ancient S series but realize they used early 1960s coating technology that was bettered by the later S and PS lenses.

I had a PS50, PS65, S105, PS80, PS150, PS180. I still have the PS180 since it was quite expensive and couldn't bundle it with the rest. Of these lenses I preferred the PS80 and the PS180 (not for landscape/infinity focus but that's okay since it was designed for portraiture). The PS65 was a bit enigmatic and some photos were quite nice. I mostly shoot from a tripod mirror-up so I wouldn't put it down to camera shake or mirror slap. To me, I'm happier with the older Zenzanons and Nikkors for S mount and having both a SQ and S2A/EC seems a bit superfluous. The Nikkor O.C 50mm f2.8 (a multi coated lens) was definitely better than the PS50 at lower apertures.

 

[CGW]

I believe I can see where this is going and I'm kindly going to disregard your question. Let me just say it was my very subjective observation. Perhaps it was worded badly and my intention is not to confront anyone - just one other user's highly personal opinion. Take it for what it is and feel free to dismiss it as such.




I had a PS50, PS65, S105, PS80, PS150, PS180. I still have the PS180 since it was quite expensive and couldn't bundle it with the rest. Of these lenses I preferred the PS80 and the PS180 (not for landscape/infinity focus but that's okay since it was designed for portraiture). The PS65 was a bit enigmatic and some photos were quite nice. I mostly shoot from a tripod mirror-up so I wouldn't put it down to camera shake or mirror slap. To me, I'm happier with the older Zenzanons and Nikkors for S mount and having both a SQ and S2A/EC seems a bit superfluous. The Nikkor O.C 50mm f2.8 (a multi coated lens) was definitely better than the PS50 at lower apertures.

Sorry but Trond has a point.

Not sure how one would quantify "enigmatic" as an optical term.

Have never had any complaints about Bronica glass. Think the old 105/3.5S and 150/3.5S both have gorgeous bokeh and excel as portrait lenses, along with the 135/4PS. Find the SQ series better suited to studio/flash work for the leaf shutter lenses compared to slow synch speeds of the old S bodies with their focal plane shutters.

 

[sveamarcus]

Find the SQ series better suited to studio/flash work for the leaf shutter lenses compared to slow synch speeds of the old S bodies with their focal plane shutters.

And that's why I now have a Hassy.

 

[tkamiya]

In terms of the weight, it's a big camera but it is nowhere near as heavy as people make it out to be. Maybe I have just been hitting the Wheaties lately but on friday I went for a pretty intense 2.5-3 mile walk and had no problems holding the camera. Really the weight is a non issue to me so I am definitely relieved!

Congratulations! If you are a "lumberjack type" as you say, you are exact opposite of me. I'm an IT mushroom. it's not only pure weight that was issue for me, it's ergonomics for hand-holding that was also an issue. In a word, it's cumbersome to hand-hold and use.

Camera choice is really a personal thing and you may not have any issue with it. Only time will tell. Someone told me L bracket is a great help so you might want to consider it as a future addition. Enjoy your camera and looking forward to your gallery postings.

 

[tron_]

Well I'm bored at work and thought I would give you guys an update on this thread.

I still have the camera and I'm still completely head over heels for it. Really love this camera, I cannot think of any downsides to it other than the fact that I get a lot of people stopping and asking me wtf it is since this is my first medium format camera I don't really notice the size/weight of it since I have nothing to compare it with but with that said, I hand hold this thing 99% of the time still.

I've also began developing my own 120 film and it's super easy, anyone interested in it should definitely give it a try!