Cannot make mind up 6x6 or 6x7

<p>Been thinking for some years. RB67 too large/heavy, 645 a bit small for my liking. I am out the whole day with my own backpacker travels, sunrise .. be out wait to sunset and come back to hotel ..</p>

<p>So it's a Hasselblad or a P67. <br>

B/c I do mainly travel focussing on scapes, tripod, few frames a day so I don't shoot all day documenting myself. The square format like it how one does not need to flip the camera to the side or debate a landscape or portrait shot and it could make me see the world in a different way but the thing with land/cityscape is that I cannot get wide expanse area shots that I do like. I do like the lighter weight and the WLF way of approach and the faster flash-x but I don't really take pix of people (and use flash) but when I do it will be nice. I don't want to crop the 6x6 to 645 and lose the real estate and once you compare 645 to 6x7 it's a 50% difference. </p>

<p>The P67. Is a larger film size, it's rectangle but it may not give me as much enjoyment as it looks like a large 35mm. Putting the camera in portrait might seem goofy for a large camera but do'able I know. Yes, slow flash-x but I don't think that would be really an issue for me given how less I shoot it. And the Pentax lenses are cheaper. A 3 lens system could be organised cheaper than a intermediate dSLR body-alone. </p>

<p>I am not sure if I can get any assistance but appreciate your words at least ... I am thinking thou the P67 gets the job best done for myself and it's cheap. The Hasselblad may give a more modular system and a diff way of style at the expense of the square system. If I put myself in a businessman's shoes, the P67 might be the better one with emotions aside ..</p>

<p>Your choice of camera shouldn't necessarily be "in a business man's shoes". You should use a camera you like. It is a bit like a woman friend in that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people love hasselblad and some people don't. Some people love the Pentax 67 and some people don't. It isn't always a logical concern. Especially if it is an amateur enjoyment you should use the tools you get personally attached to. So what I am saying is that since you don't have either system you should leave yourself open to change your mind if you try one and don't like it. The Pentax is a cheaper system to try out. Perhaps try a body with the 105 or 75. <br>

You will get lot of advice for each from people who love one or the other. They are both good systems with both having good points and bad. The most important thing is that you find which you most enjoy. </p>

<p>Consider also the Bronica GS-1 for 6x7 if you don't take to the Pentax's handling. Lighter and smaller than the Mamiya, with a similar form factor to it and the Hasselblad.<br>

If you really like wide expanse shots, consider a 6x9 camera, like one of the Fuji rangefinders. For that matter, there are also Fuji rangefinder cameras in 6x7.</p>

 

<p>There are some other issues here. You seem worried about "losing real estate" by not having a 6x7, but it really depends on how large you print and what kind of film you use. I have 10x10 prints from tmax400 that lose nothing--no grain at all. If you use Acros or Velvia then I don't see that the differences in these formats would be that substantial. Others might disagree<br>

If you scan, then getting "wide expanse" shots isn't an issue--you just create a panorama.<br>

This seems trivial, but it may not be: with 6x6, you can store a roll on one sheet, 3 frames to a strip. You can't do that with 6x7. You can also batch scan 3 frames of 6x6. <br />One of the prime reasons to carry a Hasselblad would seem to be the advantage of interchangeable backs. Do you use a variety of films while out hiking?<br>

While I have a Hasselblad, the camera that usually goes hiking with me is a Mamiya 6.</p>

<p>Everyone has individual preferences, so it's nice to have the different hardware choices.<br>

Rectangle format as a default has an advantage in versatility IMO, as one can crop to square when and if appropriate... and still have pretty good film acreage either way.<br>

Waist-level viewing is a natural with the Hasselblad, which is just not shaped well for eye-level operation. Pentax 67 is just the opposite, so take your pick! A pretty clear distinction here...<br>

There are more brand and format choices in the waist-level side, and the modular ones have the advantage of changeable backs (and the drawbacks too). The Pentax 67 is unique in the film camera market for its layout like a large 35mm SLR, but note that Leica chose this direction too for the S2.<br>

With any of these cameras the lens you choose can make a big difference in ease of carrying, and how conspicuous you may be! Have fun shopping...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't want to crop the 6x6 to 645 and lose the real estate...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then don't crop that small.<br>

If you want the 8 X 10 inch enlargement ratio that 6 X 7 gives...then crop 6 X 6 to about a 6 X 5.5(?) ratio.<br>

A couple of 'Sharpie' marks on your ground glass will guide you within the slightly reduced format.<br>

A great many photographers have successfully submitted slightly cropped 6 X 6 images to editors<br>

for decades; images taken with 6 X 6 TLR's, Hasselblads, Bronicas, etc...<br>

As mentioned, if you're scanning, you can print to any format ratio you want.</p>

<p>Marc</p>

<p>In your shoes, and having been in the Hasselblad camp, I think I would go for the Mamiya 645/Pentax 645/Contax 645 or Bronica ETRs - most of my 6 x 6 shots ended up being cropped so a smaller camera is cheaper and much more fun to carry around. If you really must have bigger then I would go for the Mamiya 7 or the Fuji 6 x 9 - simple and yet very high quality and not the dead weight of the RZ/RB Mamiyas. Personally I found the novelty of waist level viewing died off quite quickly, so I wouldn't consider that to be an advantage or a reason to get a 6 x 6 camera.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams switched from view cameras to Hasselblad later in life, and 6x6 was good enough for him. Given that film today is more more fine grained that it was a generation ago, I don't see a problem with cropping 645 from 6x6. Yes, all things being equal a bigger negative is better. But you can easily print 30x40 from a 645 neg, so how much bigger do you need to go?</p>

<p>I don't know why Bronica is not being considered. They make an SQ which is the same as Hasselblad and a GS which is 6x7. All with leaf shutters for full synch. They are very cheap on the used market. Fear of no parts for repairs in the future? No problem. It is cheaper to re-buy a working one of whatever than to have it repaired.</p>

<p>Ray,<br>

I went through this with the Hasselblad square, and found that I had as insatable habit of packing the frame, that for the end result many times required cropping that destroyed valuable compositional appeal for the scene. So I opted for the Pentax 67II. I discovered that for me the 6x7 frame is DNA inate. I see that way, some see within the square, I admire that, we've seen great work in the square, but I tried, I can't do it. The Pentax 67II is relatively light, 2.7 lbs, the lenses are not light. Love the 6x7 it allows for verticles, and horizontals, and allows one to move in.</p>

<p>The flip side of cropping a 6x6 down to a rectangle is also an issue: You lose a lot of real estate if you decide you like the square and crop it down from 645. Then you only get 4.5x4.5. Personally, I fill up a square much easier than a rectangle, and I end up using a full square.</p>

<p>I had this same choice to make years ago and I decided to go for the Hasselblad. I went to a pro shop here in Denver and held all of the cameras that were under consideration. How a camera feels to you is very important. It is part of your comfort zone. The Hassey is a piece of art and coupled with the incredible Zeiss optics we have had a wonderful marriage. Good luck with your decision. Let us know what you decide and more importantly how it works out.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I do mainly travel focussing on scapes, tripod, few frames a day..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ray. perhaps that in itself suggests a lighter weight fixed or interchangeable lens RF medium format camera. You likely won't need the versatility of doing macro or long distance animal shots or the completeness of the Hassy or Pentax systems.</p>

<p>So the questions of travel, minimum number of exposures per day, wide frame possibility, and convenience, would seem to me to suggest the Mamiya 7 (or Mamiya 6, if the square is OK with you), or the fine GSW 690 (6x9) Fujifilm fixed lens (equivalent 28mm approx.) or GW 90mm (nearer standard lens angles of view) in either 6x7 or 6x9 sizes. All you will need for travel, apart from film, is a good exposure meter (Fuji only) and some lens optical filters.</p>

<p>If you go for a Mamiya 6 or 7, you will need a small inexpensive tripod extender (the N accessory) that separates the camera from the tripod sufficiently to allow you to activate the automatic dark slide or to change film, without removing the camera from your tripod.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. Aurthur - I have looked at the Mamiya 7, it is more expensive, and doesn't take graduated filters. It looks like the P67 is cheaper, easier to try out, can take filters. </p>

<p>If you can live with the limitations of a fixed lens rangefinder, the Fuji GF670 lets you shoot both 6x6 and 6x7 (can't switch midroll, though). I have one and the camera is a joy to use.</p>

You can switch midroll from 6x7 to 6x6, just not get the extra number of frames when you do. Just crop afterwards.

<p>Mamiya RZ has a somewhat rare 6x6 back option. Some days you'll feel like 6x6 other days 6x7</p>

<p>I have had three Pentax 67 cameras from an old beat up 6x7 model to brand new 67 then 67II models. They are great cameras, get the newest one you can, a good 67II with the metering prism will make life much simpler. As for lenses, I tried quite a few including the original 75mm and a 135mm macro but settled on a 45mm, 55mm, 105mm and a 200mm. With those lenses I could do virtually anything that I wanted landscape wise, used the 55mm most, followed by the 45mm and then the 105mm and the 200mm only occasionally. The 200mm lens needed careful handling to get sharp images out of it but the 45mm and 55mm are both very good, I'd suggest trying a setup with 45mm, 55mm and 105mm lenses.</p>

<p>The Pentax 67 might look like an overgrown 35mm camera but it does need careful handling to get the best out of it, I used to put my hand on top of the prism when I locked the mirror up and push down on it firmly as I pressed the cable release, that did seem to help in getting sharper images. The 200mm lens in particular I used to hang a small camera bag on the lens barrel and press down on the prism, otherwise mushy transparencies, even with a decent head and tripod.</p>

<p>Of the other options the Bronica GSI could be interesting as it is leaf shutter, so less vibrations to think about than a Pentax 67. Or, for occasional use, something like a Fuji GSW690 II or III might not be a bad option, its 65mm lens is optically superb, you could add a smaller Fuji 6 x 4.5cm rangefinder with a standard lens or even a Fuji GW 670 or 690 II or III with a 90mm lens, that would cover most things. It is possible to use filters with these cameras if you use something like a Lee system and check the orientation of polarisers by looking through them and then clipping them onto the holder, same goes for ND grads too.</p>

I used 6x6 in the form of a TLR. I loved the TLR, but grew to dislike the 6x6 format. I usually ended up cropping out a lot

of the image, and thus did indeed waste a lot of that square negative.

 

Reluctantly, I switched to a different camera to get a 6x7 format. I love the 6x7 format! I ended up cropping less and

using more of the negative.

 

I feel that 6x7 is a huge improvement over 6x6.

<p>As a few others have suggested, the Bronica GS-1 sounds like a good solution to your quandary. It is fully modular, has superb optics, is quite portable and great for handheld work with the leaf shutter lenses. And best of all, you don't have to decide between a 6x7, 6x6 or 645 camera because the GS-1 is all of the above! You can go retro with WLF, hand lever film advance, and all manual. Or you can attach the AE prism metered VF, the speed grip and shoot in aperture priority mode. </p>

<p>You have a third option, which is 'get both'. I use a Mamiya RZ when I want to change lenses, TLR when weight is an issue, like backpacking trips. That combination works for me. YMMV.</p>

<p>I would vote for the Pentax 6x7..swap in the folding waist-level finder to save about a pound if you are carrying for a long period</p>

If you get a 6x7 camera, you - as pointed out - already <i>have</i> both options.<br>You can crop any 6x7 frame to 6x6 at will.

[it's against PNet policy to post the same post twice, or more, in the same thread...]

[... but how about PNet Database Bad Gateway Time Outs that [etc.] ... ? ;-)<br>Post appeared multiple times. My apologies! ]