anaanda
Well-known
I basically can only buy one of these cameras... not both... so which one would you choose and why?? .....I don't like having a lot of gear so this will be my go to all around camera...and I do like some automation
Can anyone comment on the artisitic differences and what they peronally like about 35 or Medium format??
Can anyone comment on the artisitic differences and what they peronally like about 35 or Medium format??
FrankS
Registered User
The Bronica seems to have more going for it: the possibility of interchanging lenses, and the larger neg size for better quality enlargements. The other major diff is that the Hexar AF is auto-focus. Only you can decide what's best for you, but both cameras are very, very good cameras.
N
Nick R.
Guest
I have both. I use the Hexar a lot more if that means anything. It depends on what type of shooting your planning on doing. Family snapshots? art photography? probably a mixture of both, I'd guess. The Bronica is one of the few MF types that will fit both categories comfortably. Figure out which one you really want and get that one first. Let's face it; if you stick around here you'll get both eventually.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I don't like the portrait orientation of the Bronica, so I would eliminate it immediately. The Hexar AF sounds like a great camera.
sf
Mentor
35mm :
if you WANT grain, it is easier to get . . .but since you're scanning anyway, photoshop that grain in there
scanners for 35mm are cheaper (about 1/3 to 1/2 price of MF scanners)
glass for 35mm cameras tends to be higher resolving, but with the smaller neg, you still get better clarity and tonality from MF, even with a Kiev 6x6 vs. a Leica 35mm SUmmicron.
35mm is easier to keep flat in the camera. . . .but that's not a strong argument.
MF :
better image quality in terms of tonality, sharpness, resolution, color density, etc.
Easier to crop and to work with since the neg is larger
processing cost is higher for MF, but that cost is negligible when balanced with the image quality increase
Sometimes there are images that you're glad you have on 645 instead of a little 35mm. I have landscapes that if I'd taken them on 35mm, it would be tragic.
Using the Bronica, you'll slow down and tend to smell the roses more. You won't shoot through rolls of film because you won't have AF and motor drive. You WILL have Aperture priority, metering, and a fantastic electronic leaf shutter and you will have the most accurate metering I've ever seen in a camera. You will have a great deal more flexability with composition and printing, and the interchangeable lenses are a good thing.
With the Hexar, you'll have faster glass, but that balances against having a smaller negative, so the overall gain is negated. Use faster film in the Bronica and you'll still have sharper images. . . . .and manual focus is always better than AF. AF is difficult if not impossible to get perfect on organic forms. SHooting portraits with the hexar would be difficult wide open. Shooting with the Bronica, as Doug's gallery will show, will allow you totally perfect focus every time.
if you WANT grain, it is easier to get . . .but since you're scanning anyway, photoshop that grain in there
scanners for 35mm are cheaper (about 1/3 to 1/2 price of MF scanners)
glass for 35mm cameras tends to be higher resolving, but with the smaller neg, you still get better clarity and tonality from MF, even with a Kiev 6x6 vs. a Leica 35mm SUmmicron.
35mm is easier to keep flat in the camera. . . .but that's not a strong argument.
MF :
better image quality in terms of tonality, sharpness, resolution, color density, etc.
Easier to crop and to work with since the neg is larger
processing cost is higher for MF, but that cost is negligible when balanced with the image quality increase
Sometimes there are images that you're glad you have on 645 instead of a little 35mm. I have landscapes that if I'd taken them on 35mm, it would be tragic.
Using the Bronica, you'll slow down and tend to smell the roses more. You won't shoot through rolls of film because you won't have AF and motor drive. You WILL have Aperture priority, metering, and a fantastic electronic leaf shutter and you will have the most accurate metering I've ever seen in a camera. You will have a great deal more flexability with composition and printing, and the interchangeable lenses are a good thing.
With the Hexar, you'll have faster glass, but that balances against having a smaller negative, so the overall gain is negated. Use faster film in the Bronica and you'll still have sharper images. . . . .and manual focus is always better than AF. AF is difficult if not impossible to get perfect on organic forms. SHooting portraits with the hexar would be difficult wide open. Shooting with the Bronica, as Doug's gallery will show, will allow you totally perfect focus every time.
anaanda
Well-known
Thanks for the insights, and its true what Nick R. says... that eventually I'll get both... but since I already have a 35 mm scanner and the Hexar is about 300$ cheaper....I am leaning toward the Hexar....so I'll think the Bronica will have to wait.... for now. Its really the money otherwise I would go for the Bronica...
again thanks for the thoughts..
again thanks for the thoughts..
jano
Evil Bokeh
If you want family snapshots and all-round stuff, the AF on the hexar will be more useful than manual focus. You'll also be able to get a few more shots per roll than with 120/220.
amateriat
We're all light!
Awfully tough...both cameras have their considerable virtues. Speaking as a 35mm "lifer", so to speak, and having used a Hexar autofocus on an almost-daily basis for close to five years (replaced with a pair of Hexar RFs several years back), I think the Hexar AF would be a more natural and ready companion for both spur-of-the-moment picture opportunities and slower, more contemplative work (its "silent mode" capability helps lots here). The quality is there for both. And, while I won't kid you about absolute image quality versus a capable, larger-format camera like the Bronica – to use that somewhat-tired Detroit axiom, there's no substitute for cubic inches – what you'll get from a given 35mm roll with the HAF will certainly satisfy on its own merits, particularly as the sun sets and the street lights stutter to life.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Last edited:
sf
Mentor
Shots per roll with 220 : 32
Only 4 less than a 36 roll
They're right about the handiness of the Hexar. AF DOES make it quicker. Especially if you intend to take pictures of little kids. Moving objects at close distance are a little beyond the RF645's abilities.
If you like having super shallow DOF, then you really have to do the Hexar thing, because F4 isn't F2/
Only 4 less than a 36 roll
They're right about the handiness of the Hexar. AF DOES make it quicker. Especially if you intend to take pictures of little kids. Moving objects at close distance are a little beyond the RF645's abilities.
If you like having super shallow DOF, then you really have to do the Hexar thing, because F4 isn't F2/
jano
Evil Bokeh
Ah, thanks, I didn't know how many shots were on 220. 
sf
Mentor
mmm, yeah. It's kind of a trade secret.
Lenny
Member
anaanda said:
An option for you to consider - why not get the Bronica RF645 and a Ricoh GR1V.
I have both and the shirt-pocket sized GR1V can fit anywhere. It's image quality is beyond reproach. Only the other day I was comparing slides taken by my Leica M6 and the GR1V and the Ricoh was better. Don't be concerned about it's 28mm lens - just use your feet if you want closer shots and vice versa...