Bronica Medium Format Owners Thread

skysh4rk said:
Hmmm... The problem is that the MF Finder S takes over control of the shutter speeds from the body when it's attached (there's actually a shutter speed selector on the finder itself, which adds half stops); but there would be no way for the finder to communicate the shutter speeds to an SQ-B body, as the SQ-B lacks the necessary electrical contacts.

Can I ask why you are interested in the MF Finder S? I would say the ordinary waist level finder is as good or better in most shooting situations, plus the WLF plays nicely with the SQ-B and every other SQ body.
Click to expand...

It's just the meter that would be handy - if it worked such that it gave you a reading you could manually transfer to the shutter dial on the camera it would be quite useful. I agree the WLF is fine otherwise, but carrying a seperate meter is less convenient.
 
magicolor1 said:
It's just the meter that would be handy - if it worked such that it gave you a reading you could manually transfer to the shutter dial on the camera it would be quite useful. I agree the WLF is fine otherwise, but carrying a seperate meter is less convenient.
Click to expand...

I personally found the size and shape of the MF Finder S to be a lot less convenient than carrying a separate light meter with the WLF, but individual mileage may vary.
 
I have decided that me and the ETRSi will part ways. It's a great camera to use and I love some of the results that it has produced however I am just left hankering for 6x6. I found this when I shot with it over the weekend. Part of me may just keep it if it doesn't sell but I can't really justify this alongside a 6x6 setup.

I have listed the camera on here and also elsewhere. :)
 
Anyone tell me if the SQ-A has a split screen focus ? Or is it just matte.
 
Finally got around to developing my first roll on my SQ-A. A few disappointments, a few blown focuses, two with light-leaks (but I'm beginning to suspect that these are happening due to my improper handling of the exposed rolls - I'm getting random ones on my Yashica, too, and I should probably start storing the rolls properly rather than throwing them in the bottom of my bag).

I do have a couple I'm happy with, though. I think I'm going to like the SQ-A. I bought some chemicals today, the changing bag arrives Monday, then I have a roll of HP5+ to develop. Exciting.

Brecon canal basin, Ektar, developed by Express Imaging in Cardiff, scanned by me on a V500, very little processing done.

View attachment 13878 View attachment 13879 View attachment 13882
Oh, and here's my first frame, as mentioned upthread. I'm surprised it's not just white, given the number of exposures I managed to put on it.

View attachment 13880
 
SQ-A with 50mm and 80mm in my hot little hands now.

Now I'll evaluate 6x6 or 645...probably won't keep both.
 
A 6x6 can do 6x4.5 but a 6x4.5 can't do 6x6. Also I like waist level finders which aren't great on 6x4.5 turned vertical.

For that reason I chose my 6x6 Bronica S2.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
A 6x6 can do 6x4.5 but a 6x4.5 can't do 6x6. Also I like waist level finders which aren't great on 6x4.5 turned vertical.

For that reason I chose my 6x6 Bronica S2.


Steve.
Click to expand...

H'mm why would a 6 X 4.5 owner want to do 6 X 6 ;) Come to think of it a 6X6 owner can't do 6 X 7, but a RB owner can crop one side and get 6 X 6 (y)
 
trevorbray said:
SQ-A with 50mm and 80mm in my hot little hands now.

Now I'll evaluate 6x6 or 645...probably won't keep both.
Click to expand...

I agree with the points raised by @Steve Smith. Now that there isn't much of a price difference between the ETR series and the SQ series, I really can't see much of a justification for choosing the 645 route. The SQ is similar in size, has a similar collection of lenses, shoots both 645 and 6x6, and works well with both prisms and WLFs. It basically does everything an ETR camera can and more.
 
skysh4rk said:
I agree with the points raised by @Steve Smith. Now that there isn't much of a price difference between the ETR series and the SQ series, I really can't see much of a justification for choosing the 645 route. The SQ is similar in size, has a similar collection of lenses, shoots both 645 and 6x6, and works well with both prisms and WLFs. It basically does everything an ETR camera can and more.
Click to expand...
Except get 15 shots on a roll ;) If you always print a rectangle then 6x6 doesn't make any sense. I really like square composition although I find it harder to "see" in squares.
 
magicolor1 said:
Except get 15 shots on a roll ;) If you always print a rectangle then 6x6 doesn't make any sense. I really like square composition although I find it harder to "see" in squares.
Click to expand...

You can get 15 exposures per roll with a 645 back for the SQ, so no advantage for the ETR series there.

Even if you print a rectangle, which I don't, using 6x6 means that you can still easily use a WLF. I'd much rather have the improved ergonomics and usability afforded by the WLF than the three extra exposures.
 
3 extra shots is just three more compositions I need to find. Even 6x9 can be a little troublesome finishing on occasion.
 
Just waiting for my prism finder to arrive for the SQ.
Then I'll shoot them side by side (probably just the once) and decide.
 
skysh4rk said:
I agree with the points raised by @Steve Smith. Now that there isn't much of a price difference between the ETR series and the SQ series, I really can't see much of a justification for choosing the 645 route. The SQ is similar in size, has a similar collection of lenses, shoots both 645 and 6x6, and works well with both prisms and WLFs. It basically does everything an ETR camera can and more.
Click to expand...

Why did Bronica make two cameras then if the sq can do everything.
 
excalibur2 said:
Why did Bronica make two cameras then if the sq can do everything.
Click to expand...

In another era there was a much greater price differential between the bodies, lenses, and accessories of the ETR and SQ series. Basically, the ETR was the more affordable medium format option (not unlike how APS-C bodies and lenses are more affordable compared to 'full frame' digital cameras today)

Obviously there will be people for whom the ETR series is better suited, especially if you prefer prism finders, crop to rectangles, and want the smallest form factor in medium format, but now that the prices have evened out between the ETR and SQ, I think it's harder for most folks to justify choosing the ETR, as the SQ does the same thing and more.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Because they made the ETRS first... before they thought about making the SQ.


Steve.
Click to expand...

That's a good point ;) Once I had my new RB and ETRS and with my Pentax S3 for 35mm (bought new also)....I wasn't much interested in all the new 35mm and MF cameras that came out after.
 
skysh4rk said:
In another era there was a much greater price differential between the bodies, lenses, and accessories of the ETR and SQ series. Basically, the ETR was the more affordable medium format option (not unlike how APS-C bodies and lenses are more affordable compared to 'full frame' digital cameras today)

Obviously there will be people for whom the ETR series is better suited, especially if you prefer prism finders, crop to rectangles, and want the smallest form factor in medium format, but now that the prices have evened out between the ETR and SQ, I think it's harder for most folks to justify choosing the ETR, as the SQ does the same thing and more.
Click to expand...

Good points
 
abdoujaparov said:
Bronica obviously thought there was a market for a cheaper 6x6 too, with the SQ-B.
Click to expand...

Good point. When new, the SQ-B outfit was about 30% cheaper than the SQ-Ai kit and was similarly priced to the fully-equipped ETRSi. It was primarily aimed at students and newcomers to medium format and could only be bought as a complete kit.
 
Well to sum up:- As the etrs can do nearly everything the sq can, and the Sq can do everything the Etrs can, and the prices are similar then the choice should be about the better quality camera and lenses i.e. best bang for buck.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well to sum up:- As the etrs can do nearly everything the sq can, and the Sq can do everything the Etrs can, and the prices are similar then the choice should be about the better quality camera and lenses i.e. best bang for buck.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they are equal. If Bronica had made the SQ first, I doubt that they would have bothered with the ETRS as it would have been easier to just make a 6x4.5 back for the SQ.

I'm quite surprised that they didn't do this though, considering that they already had 6x6 models such as the EC and the S2.


Steve.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well to sum up:- As the etrs can do nearly everything the sq can, and the Sq can do everything the Etrs can, and the prices are similar then the choice should be about the better quality camera and lenses i.e. best bang for buck.
Click to expand...

As Steve has suggested, the cameras and lens lineups are virtually identical; you quite simply aren't going to see a difference in the images between these two systems. Consequently, I do think you need to make this decision based on what these cameras can and cannot do, as that is the only way to differentiate them.

Steve Smith said:
I'm sure they are equal. If Bronica had made the SQ first, I doubt that they would have bothered with the ETRS as it would have been easier to just make a 6x4.5 back for the SQ.

I'm quite surprised that they didn't do this though, considering that they already had 6x6 models such as the EC and the S2.


Steve.
Click to expand...

The reason they kept the ETR series really is because it was far more economical. I have a medium format catalogue from around 2001 or so and every corresponding lens, back, and accessory was cheaper for the ETR than the SQ series by about 20% to 30%. This difference really added up if you were purchasing a couple of backs, a few lenses, and various accessories (e.g., lens hoods, speed grips, etc.) back in the day.
 
Last edited:
Well there must have been a reason why I chose to spend £614 on Etrs with 75mm, speed grip and AEII prism in 1986 and would have thought I would have looked at all types and makes of cameras.....but I just can't remember that far back :(
 
excalibur2 said:
Well there must have been a reason why I chose to spend £614 on Etrs with 75mm, speed grip and AEII prism in 1986 and would have thought I would have looked at all types and makes of cameras.....but I just can't remember that far back :(
Click to expand...

Well, at that time there would have been more differences between the ETR and SQ systems (e.g., I think some ETR lenses had been redesigned at that point, but not the SQ). Both systems continued to evolve from the date you purchased your camera.

While I think the SQ is probably the more logical option for most people today, I'm not suggesting that the SQ was always the better choice, it very well might not have been.
 
Is the 645 back on the SQ in landscape or portrait mode? I'm assuming the former...
 
skysh4rk said:
Well, at that time there would have been more differences between the ETR and SQ systems (e.g., I think some ETR lenses had been redesigned at that point, but not the SQ). Both systems continued to evolve from the date you purchased your camera.

While I think the SQ is probably the more logical option for most people today, I'm not suggesting that the SQ was always the better choice, it very well might not have been.
Click to expand...

Interesting that the Etr series lasted one year later than all other models for end of production:-
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/data/bronica/list_dis.html
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
:D were digital cameras any good in 2004 ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you're making Brian, what have digital cameras got to do with Bronicas?
 
Steve Smith said:
It depended upon who you asked. Many who had spent £1000+ on a 6MP camera would have told you that it had all the resolution anyone needed.


Steve.
Click to expand...

A 6mp scan of a Bronica neg, from a good scanner, would give VG results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top