vendredi 17 décembre 2004

Cameras I've Clicked With Zenza Bronica S2a I was reminded this afternoon of the vulnerability of most cameras and all computers when everything in town went down for a few hours... the first rain for a few weeks and everything electrical went kaput! Thinking I'd be without the means of writing my weblog and uploading it I thought about those times when I used to write everything personal by hand with a black Montblanc Meisterstück and type everything to do with business on a red Olivetti Valentine.... ah, simpler tools for calmer times. Nowadays much equipment has to be plugged into something else... a keyboard into a computer... a digicam into a computer or PictBridge device for direct printing... even batteries have to be plugged into cameras to awaken them. Doing a quick count there are a dozen fully working cameras in the house... increasing in size they range from a Leica M3, Pentax SV, three Nikon F2 plain prism bodies, a plastic Holga 6x6, a 4x5 inch Toho FC-45 Mini (tiny monorail field camera belonging to Roger Hicks), and then big stuff ranging from a cherry-wood 5x7 inch Lotus Rapid View, to mahogany 5x7 inch Kodak Century studio camera, 10x8 inch Sands Hunter studio and 16x 2 inch (yes, inch!) Gandolfi studio cameras. That's eleven... the twelfth is a Nikon F3 and the only one of the bunch which requires a battery to operate with any flexibility (it will fire without a battery at a couple of next-to-useless speeds in an emergency). I've never been a lover of battery-dependent cameras... a few times I've owned one (or perhaps more unfortunately, two) they've generally let me down in the most awkward situations, remote locations and difficult times when trying to find an open shop, newsagent, chemist, garage or supermarket for a replacement. The best electronic camera I've owned was a Minolta 9000 which took those most popular of standard batteries, the AA size... and as Sod's Law would have it never let me down! Most of the cameras in the above list I've owned for a number of years... but none rested longer in my hands than an old Bronica S2A which was regrettably sold just as we were about to celebrate a quarter of a century of working use together... which even in the photographic era before "auto-everything" said something not just about its reliability but about its suitability for the jobs I was putting it through. Pictures taken with that camera are still being sold on a regular basis... even those of my eldest daughter Zoe from nearly 35 years ago. What was the thinking behind the decision to buy a heavy and bulky roll-film camera in those days when most photographers were using 35mm Nikons or Pentax Spotmatics? The simple answer, which still causes arguments among photographers in this digital age, was square inches. I'd heard that the Nikkor lenses used on original Bronicas didn't have the resolution of the best 35mm lenses of the day... and there were only a limited number of lenses available... but it's easy to counter those arguments when you actually began to use the equipment which was superb. For a start, whatever advances there are in 35mm film technology they apply more so with 120 roll-film. llford 120 HP3 was better than 35mm FP3 thirty-five years ago... as is today's 120 Delta 400 over 35mm Delta 400. Those original Nikon lenses for the early Bronicas didn't have to resolve as much fine detail as 35mm lenses because the negatives were subjected to less enlargement. A 35mm negative has to be magnified 10 times to produce a 16x12 inch print compared with 6 times from a 6x6cm negative. The argument will always be the same... there is no substitute for square inches... a larger negative will nearly always give a better print. The apparent disadvantage of longer focal length lenses with medium-format compared to 35mm systems doesn't apply in most practical situations. Shoot a sweeping vista with a 28mm wide-angle on 35mm and the background recedes into insignificance. By using a Bronica 50mm lens (necessary to give approximately the same angle-of-view on the film) the background "grows" in importance due to the lesser relative compression of the picture's elements. At the other end of the scale the 105mm lens is regarded as ideal for 35mm portraiture because it effectively throws the background out of focus and concentrates the viewer's visual senses on the sitter's face. This effect, which is only clearly defined by using a wide aperture, is even more emphasised through the equivalent 200mm Bronica lens. Likewise, with the humble standard lens the "drawing" effect produced by the 75mm Nikkor lens of the Bronica is much stronger... without being distorted or undesirable compared with a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. Many 35mm photographers used to forgo the standard 50mm lens and opted to buy an 85mm short-telephoto for those very reasons. Nowadays, when the standard for 35mm cameras is the 28-85mm "do-it-all" zoom the medium-format user may appear to be the loser in the optical picture-grabbing stakes. But this is not so. Why? Because the Bronica's larger frame size allows for so much judicious cropping after the event that zooming-in, or changing to a longer lens for a selective view of the scene or subject is not nearly so necessary. But back to the question... why a Bronica instead of a more versatile 35mm SLR? Some photographers say they built their reputations with medium-format - but I can't make such a claim. It's also said that medium-format is for photographers who take their work very seriously - but again not with me. I've paid just as much attention getting a picture with 35mm as with a 5x7... so the reason lies somewhere between those two formats with their pros and cons. Shooting with an early Bronica requires more planning than with a 35mm SLR... but does not have the constraints of the much larger 5x4 or 5x7 formats. For example, the viewed image might be laterally reversed in the waist-level finder, rather than correctly as seen through a bright pentaprism, but at least it isn't upside-down as well! And as for the all important supporting act... whereas a 35mm camera is rarely used on a tripod and a 5x4 inch because of its modus operandi has to be, the 6x6cm Bronica can be used either way... a happy medium in both senses. Although there's a disadvantage with a Bronica for action photography... most photographers used them for more static subjects. And there I think hides an important hint... the general photographic rule-of-thumb to use the largest format that the subject will allow... which suits all the Bronica systems. A disadvantage to some is the lack of built-in metering... but this can help to better understanding of photographic practice and theory. Does the shutter speed equivalent or reciprocal of the film's speed on a bright sunny day rule-of-thumb ever let a thinking photographer down? It shouldn't! And if the lighting or weather conditions are tricky a hand-held exposure meter can be used. It may be just a little slower than a TTL metering system but it teaches you a few essentials about exposure, film latitude and contrast. Any Bronica in good condition is a cheap investment for a photographer turning freelance. My venerable second-hand S2A complete with standard lens cost about the same as a new interchangeable film-back for the rival Hasselblad camera of the period. And some superb Nikkor lenses for medium-format can be picked up for under £200. Although incompatible with modern Bronica systems (production now stopped) these lenses are an introduction to the marque... and for many photographers the first camera they buy is often enough to keep them with that manufacturer's products in the future. With the Bronica S2A I was introduced to a quality product at a low price. Thirty-five years on that quality is in the prints I make from those negatives... the camera performed as regularly as clockwork and the initial cost was repaid many times over... what a pity I sold it! 8:59:04 PM    comment []