sf
Mentor
I've seen lots of scans from the 4990 and they look very good. you can read about it here : http://www.kenrockwell.com/epson/4990.htm
I have been very unhappy with flatbed film scanners overall. I used an Epson 3170 for a year, and it was a miserable thing. BUT, the 4990 is surely a huge improvement over the 3170. And it is 1/3 the price of the Multi Pro that I use.
I have been very unhappy with flatbed film scanners overall. I used an Epson 3170 for a year, and it was a miserable thing. BUT, the 4990 is surely a huge improvement over the 3170. And it is 1/3 the price of the Multi Pro that I use.
anaanda
Well-known
I am really lusting after this camera right now....yet it will set me back 850 + the 500 scanner (1300) I already have a minolta 35 scanner and I was going to buy the Hexar AF for around 450..Its one or the other! $500 or $1300...One of these is going to be my main tool my main camera for taking with me all the time..
What do you think!
I already have a Canonet GIII which I like but don't love. I want to love my camera!
Any experience with the Hexar AF?
What do you think!
I already have a Canonet GIII which I like but don't love. I want to love my camera!
Any experience with the Hexar AF?
sf
Mentor
Buy the Epson 3170 . . .. I know, I don't give it a glowing review, but it was truly fine for scanning negatives for the screen. Just don't try scanning E-6.
If you buy the 3170, you will have spent only $90-100
then $850 on the camera makes less than $1000 on a MF kit.
About twice the price of just buying the Hexar. . . .but you already have a 35mm camera. Why would you spend $500 on something that is somewhat redundant? Some day, you'll take a picture with the Bronica and be very happy you have the large negative. The balance is this : in a year, you will have a book full of 6x4.5cm negatives and slides, big and beautiful for incredibly tonal and detailed prints. OR you will have another 35mm camera and a book of yet more 35mm negs that you'd have a hard time comparing with those from the GIII - and you'll then have a hard time really justifying the $500 for the Hexar. And with the Bronica, that extra cost will have been easily absorbed by the extra quality in your images. I know that I'd never trade my Bronica for any Leica camera, not because I love the camera itself, but because no 35mm camera could produce more technically beautiful negatives.
The one time you capture an image that truly requires the MF negative, you'll forget that extra cost.
If you intend to print larger than 5x7 from your negs, buy the 4990. If you print only rarely, buy the 3170 and get out to the shop to have those 8x10s printed. I think Doug said it to me, in so many words, you will always have those great negatives, and someday you can scan them at wonderful resolution, so don't worry so much about buying an amazing scanner as buying a great camera.
If you buy the 3170, you will have spent only $90-100
then $850 on the camera makes less than $1000 on a MF kit.
About twice the price of just buying the Hexar. . . .but you already have a 35mm camera. Why would you spend $500 on something that is somewhat redundant? Some day, you'll take a picture with the Bronica and be very happy you have the large negative. The balance is this : in a year, you will have a book full of 6x4.5cm negatives and slides, big and beautiful for incredibly tonal and detailed prints. OR you will have another 35mm camera and a book of yet more 35mm negs that you'd have a hard time comparing with those from the GIII - and you'll then have a hard time really justifying the $500 for the Hexar. And with the Bronica, that extra cost will have been easily absorbed by the extra quality in your images. I know that I'd never trade my Bronica for any Leica camera, not because I love the camera itself, but because no 35mm camera could produce more technically beautiful negatives.
The one time you capture an image that truly requires the MF negative, you'll forget that extra cost.
If you intend to print larger than 5x7 from your negs, buy the 4990. If you print only rarely, buy the 3170 and get out to the shop to have those 8x10s printed. I think Doug said it to me, in so many words, you will always have those great negatives, and someday you can scan them at wonderful resolution, so don't worry so much about buying an amazing scanner as buying a great camera.
anaanda
Well-known
Thanks for the advice..I really appreciate it....I guess the only other concern was the slow F4 lens. I do only black and white and mostly available light photography..whats your thought on this. I already have a darkroom set up so I could print there.. but it takes so much time. (I'd rather scan and print (I just ordered the MIS black and white inks)..I'll only do large blow ups with my conventional darkroom)..You almost have me convinced. If you can convince me I'll be alright in a decently light Church/Temple for a wedding with 400/1600 film I'm sold.....
telenous
Well-known
Since I only got it yesterday, my experience of the Bronica is really next to nothing, and I was equally concerned with the f4 lens. But I think shutterflower may be right to insist that this is a general purpose camera. Look at it this way: an f4 lens with a B&W film ISO3200 corresponds (perhaps roughly) to an f1.4 lens with an ISO400 film. That's not too bad - in fact, I think it is sufficient for averagely lit interiors like churches etc. The only times I have used my Summilux with a Neopan 1600 was in a very dark club and in stark darkness on the street. If you can live with that then the Bronica is the right camera for you (and anyway you have the Canonet for these few cases you need an extra bright lens).
Bronica is a marvellous camera. Have no doubt, the larger negatives are dealmakers.
Bronica is a marvellous camera. Have no doubt, the larger negatives are dealmakers.
sf
Mentor
Well, how often would you shoot a wedding at F2.8? Not very often, I would assume. You would shoot at probably no wider than F4 anyway. In fact, you'd be more likely to shoot at F5.6-F8 anyway and perhaps with a flash. . . the RF645 has a flash too that you can buy.
I took the RF645 out at night (very low light) with delta 3200 (at 1600), so you could find some Neopan 1600 and be perfectly fine in a decently lit church.
This is a handheld in Paris, Delta 3200@1600 : http://www.shutterflower.com/street scenes gallery/pages/passage-in-parisRFF.htm
VERY low light. You'd surely have better light than this.
The Neopan 1600 is magnificent B&W 1600 ISO film. . . i should have brought that instead of the Delta, oh well.
If you only shoot B&W, the Epson 3170 is very decent for prints at 8x10. . . not great, but you'd have a hard time finding a printer that would actually make use of more resolution. THe only gain you'd make with the 4990 is DMAX. But how much do your negs really have?
Just ask yourself, how often would you shoot a wedding shot at F2.8? With manual focus, probably very rarely. You will probably be looking at 1/60 to 1/125 indoors with 1600 ISO film @ f4, assuming low light. But decently lit, probably twice that or more. Honestly, I can't imagine any reason that this camera would not be perfect for weddings. I shot my sister yesterday, for a comp card, in a decently lit (no lights but for cloudy sunlight through large windows) Westin lounge, and things were just fine at 1/125 f5.6 with 400 ISO film. You'll be more than fine.
I took the RF645 out at night (very low light) with delta 3200 (at 1600), so you could find some Neopan 1600 and be perfectly fine in a decently lit church.
This is a handheld in Paris, Delta 3200@1600 : http://www.shutterflower.com/street scenes gallery/pages/passage-in-parisRFF.htm
VERY low light. You'd surely have better light than this.
The Neopan 1600 is magnificent B&W 1600 ISO film. . . i should have brought that instead of the Delta, oh well.
If you only shoot B&W, the Epson 3170 is very decent for prints at 8x10. . . not great, but you'd have a hard time finding a printer that would actually make use of more resolution. THe only gain you'd make with the 4990 is DMAX. But how much do your negs really have?
Just ask yourself, how often would you shoot a wedding shot at F2.8? With manual focus, probably very rarely. You will probably be looking at 1/60 to 1/125 indoors with 1600 ISO film @ f4, assuming low light. But decently lit, probably twice that or more. Honestly, I can't imagine any reason that this camera would not be perfect for weddings. I shot my sister yesterday, for a comp card, in a decently lit (no lights but for cloudy sunlight through large windows) Westin lounge, and things were just fine at 1/125 f5.6 with 400 ISO film. You'll be more than fine.
anaanda
Well-known
Sometimes...I really envy my fiancee she's had only one camera since she was 18, a Canon AE 1 with a 50 1.8 lens and has no desire for another!!!
If I buy this camera I'll also want the 45...that's another $500!
Thanks again for all the insight, I'll let you know when I decide...
If I buy this camera I'll also want the 45...that's another $500!
Thanks again for all the insight, I'll let you know when I decide...
Zugzwang
Member
Hello fellow RF645 users and future users.
I too, own and use this camera. Love it.
Besides the incredible ergonomics of this camera and awesome lenses.
The dedicated flash is also just as well thought out. It's very easy to use, great for fill flash and very compact. I thought I would just through that in for your consideration. So add another $100 or so to the bill. Oh, and don’t forget the dedicated polarizer filter kit if you like photographing landscapes. Another $100. Ouch.
As long as they keep making 120/220 film, I can see myself using this camera for a long, long time.
Cheers
I too, own and use this camera. Love it.
Besides the incredible ergonomics of this camera and awesome lenses.
The dedicated flash is also just as well thought out. It's very easy to use, great for fill flash and very compact. I thought I would just through that in for your consideration. So add another $100 or so to the bill. Oh, and don’t forget the dedicated polarizer filter kit if you like photographing landscapes. Another $100. Ouch.
As long as they keep making 120/220 film, I can see myself using this camera for a long, long time.
Cheers
sf
Mentor
Honestly, just buy the body and 45mm. I could survive without the 65mm, as long as I never did any portraits of people with tastes for the regular.
You'll be happy with it. No need for the 45mm, really. It is a wonderful lens, but having the 65mm is like having a 40mm on the 35mm camera. No real need for anything else unless you really NEED a long lens or a super wide. Getting along with just one lens is healthy anyway. I could go without the 45mm. I'd sell it if I thought I had something to gain by selling it -besides simply $$$.
I'd be happy with just the 65mm. I only bought the kit with the 45mm because it was essentially free - I bought the thing from Robert White for $1200 total. 45, 65, body, 45mm finder. Yummy. New, of course.
Just buy the $850 kit, forget the flash (I have never wanted for it). But for weddings, I suppose you'd need it.
If you're going to shoot weddings, you NEED MF anyway. Of course, you could buy a Mamiya 645 and 3 lenses for alot less than the Bronica - and they'd be fast glass. But you'd lack the ease of use, accuracy of focus, silence, etc. . .
think think
You'll be happy with it. No need for the 45mm, really. It is a wonderful lens, but having the 65mm is like having a 40mm on the 35mm camera. No real need for anything else unless you really NEED a long lens or a super wide. Getting along with just one lens is healthy anyway. I could go without the 45mm. I'd sell it if I thought I had something to gain by selling it -besides simply $$$.
I'd be happy with just the 65mm. I only bought the kit with the 45mm because it was essentially free - I bought the thing from Robert White for $1200 total. 45, 65, body, 45mm finder. Yummy. New, of course.
Just buy the $850 kit, forget the flash (I have never wanted for it). But for weddings, I suppose you'd need it.
If you're going to shoot weddings, you NEED MF anyway. Of course, you could buy a Mamiya 645 and 3 lenses for alot less than the Bronica - and they'd be fast glass. But you'd lack the ease of use, accuracy of focus, silence, etc. . .
think think
Paulo
Member
My two cents, I too have the Rf 645 with 65 and 45mm len's and it's been amazing. There's nothing much to add to all the above comments. If you can get the 45mm DO! it's a beauty - I tend to use it way more than the 65.
Good luck with your decision
Good luck with your decision
sf
Mentor
yeah, ha ha, I used the 45mm exclusively on my trip in England and France. But, if I had to let either lens go, I'd have to say goodbye to the 45mm, because it's very wide, and the 65mm is much more normal. . .and therefore more useful as an every day lens. OF course, you could make anything your everyday lens, but you get the point.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
You can use a Vivitar flash in auto mode instead of the Bronica flash. And you'll have a more powerful flash to boot. I haven't used my RF645 for flash shots yet. But I'll take some test shots soon using my Metz with the standard adapter.
George, I hear you speaking theoretically, but your great results from England & France EXCLUSIVELY with the 45 belies your words!shutterflower said:
That 45 is super for both landscapes and cityscapes... and even environmental portraits. The only downside for me is the viewfinder, and whether you use the top-mounted accessory or just wing it with the full area of the main VF, you lose parallax compensation. Not really a big deal except at close distances of course.I'm not much of a flash user, but still I've been tempted to get the dedicated Bronica RF flash "just to have it" because it IS dedicated, part of the set, and discontinued. Still, thinking sensibly, I do have the dedicated flash unit for the Fuji GA645, have had it for 18 months and never used it once. And I've also had the dedicated flash unit for my Minolta CLE without using it since new 24 years ago!
Rico
Well-known
That is a great review! The illustrations had me drooling all the way down the page, even though I need another camera like a hole in the head.shutterflower said:
anaanda
Well-known
Bronica users...Do you find the vertical viewfinder a problem??
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
hey shutterflower...where are the deals at KEH that you speak of? i just checked, and couldn't find anything but the manual. has it been a while since you checked? i've been thinking about one of these. a link would be great if they are still there. thanks!
btw...what focal length equivalent in 35mm is the 45mm lens? it's about 28mm, right?
btw...what focal length equivalent in 35mm is the 45mm lens? it's about 28mm, right?
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
nevermind! just went back, and now they showed up. weird.
Lenny
Member
anaanda said:
Nope - I had the same reservations as you about the vertical orientation of the image. I used my newly-acquired outfit for the first time yesterday and I love the vertical orientation ! It's also very easy to turn it arolund for lansacapes etc.
Buy this camera - I'm very impressed with it. It exudes quality and clever design..
telenous
Well-known
The viewfinder orientation is of course uncommon but not difficult to familiarise yourself with. I have just finished shooting my second roll, the viewfinder is a pleasure to work with really.
Not an unusual concern, and some users simply hate vertical orientation, and that's a deal-killer for them.anaanda said:
It doesn't matter for me, since very early in my photo experience I had a Petri Half-7 that was lost, then an Olympus Pen D2... both of these half-frame cameras had vertical orientation, and I just got used to it. An equally valid question about those other cameras might be "Do you find a horizontal viewfinder a problem when you want vertical shots?"
Indeed, the vertical orientation is typical of cameras where the film runs through horizontally and the film gate is long in the cross-film direction. This is I believe the definition of "half-frame." And 6x4.5 is also a "half-frame" format, half of a 6x9 frame. I think all other film formats on 120/220 film are either square or long in the film-length direction, like 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, 6x17 etc.
The only way to get a "naturally" horizontal framing with a half-frame is to run the film through the camera vertically. Seems to me Canon had a half-frame 35 like that, looked like a movie camera... was that Canon? And of course all 645 SLR cameras run their film vertically therefore have a horizontal framing.
The square frame folks have an advantage in never having to turn their cameras, and choosing an orientation comes only at print-making time if at all. I've wondered if there mightn't be an opportunity for a camera designer to create some built-in way to make vertical and horizontal photo orientations equally convenient. Of course the big Mamiya and Fuji SLRs and large-format rigs have rotating backs; not sure if this might be applied to something more compact and hand-held, or whether the gripping surfaces and controls might be made equally usable in two orientations.