Jump to content

Hasselblad vs Pentax


ian_flory

Recommended Posts

Hello all. Having only experienced the joy of 35mm up until a few

months ago I recently got an old Hasselblad 553ELX to delve into

medium format. I primarily shoot landscape photography and having

used it for a bit, I still haven't clicked with the 6x6 square format

(must think rectangles) and find it a bit heavy and awkward to use

(welcome to medium format I hear you shout!) (and focusing is a

nightmare)

 

Without spending too much extra I have the option of switching to a

Pentax 67II which gives me a bit more of the 35mm features I am used

to plus the rectangular format I like. It also looks a little bit

more portable which means I could cut down on the 35mm use even more.

(And Lee Frost swears by them I hear)

 

What do you reckon - should I persevere with the Hasselblad or switch

now?

 

Thanks for any replies - I know I am a very lucky man to be in this

position!

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are excellent systems. Lee Frost might swear by the Pentax 67, the well known english landscape photographer Charlie Waite swears by the Hasselblad. Lenses for the Pentax are a lot cheaper, both new and second hand, compared to Hasselblad lenses. That means a lot to most of us.

 

What is it that you don't like about the square? What do you do with your pictures? Do you make slides? To my knowledge there is no affordable 6x7 projector on the market. There is a choice however in 6x6 projectors.

 

I have used the pentax 67 and now use a Hasselblad. I liked the pentax but it was too heavy. The lenses are light though. The Hasselblad is also easier to use handheld. This may however not be that important with landscape photography. Why do you think the Hasselblad is hard to focus? Do you use an acute matte screen?

 

I can't advice you what to choose. There are too many questions that need to be answered first. Which lenses do you have? The Hasselblad is a wonderful camera system. If you think the 553 is heavy, why not trade it in for a model without the attached motor or just by a cheap 500 c/m as an extra body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, all the Hassy ELX models where battery driven, and were Much Heavier than their non-battery driven cousins. As far as the Pentax 67II goes; Yes, it will feel more like 'home' to a dedicated 35mm shooter because of the format. If you have not used the Pentax 6x7, be prepared for a big surprise with the amount of vibration you get from the mirror, especially at slower speeds. As far as focusing the regular Hassys, you can get a Hassy prism viewfinder (or a russian knockoff which will do as well, but not look as nice)... that should solve the focusing issue. Try out the Pentax handheld at normal speeds, take a look at the results, then choose. They are both excellent systems, so the quality of the pictures you take will not be limited by the lenses or cameras.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ian,

<p>

There are enough people who came to love the square - even for landscape work. Charly Waite has been mentioned.

<p>

I myself wrote an article about <a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/publication02.htm">composition with a 6x6</a>

<p>

If you never have seen MF projected, be sure to get that experience. It could make you choose against a 6x7. If you are into black&white, well than I agree: the larger the negative, the better.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P67 mirror vibration that David alluded to is indeed a seismic event, but if, as you've stated, you primarily shoot landscapes, it should a non-issue. I've done the same with a P67 for years, and on no occasion have I made an exposure in any other manner than bolting it firmly atop three very solid metal legs, the mirror locked up and immobilized. I see no reason to do otherwise, short of sheer naked laziness.

 

Having said that, I'd be less than honest if I didn't mention the subject of shutter vibration, of tremors that are reputed by some to exist at speeds of 1/30th or less. This is a long and storied Beelzebub, a ghost in the machine. Some say that it's myth, some not. All have expended much emotion, both pro and con. Longstanding Friendships have been dissolved, marriages ended in unsavory divorce. Thus far, and so far as I know, nations have not gone to war over it, but the matter is relatively young if the measure of time is the history of western civilization.

 

And thus my chest is bare, but for one last wisp of darkness: if I had it to do all over again, make the choices, spend the money, I'd gleefully ditch the idea of both Hasselblad (I've never been one for prestige for its own sake) and Pentax, and buy an RZ67. Then a lens. Then another lens. Et Cetera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pentax recommend using a tripod "at least as heavy as the 67 body plus lens". My experience was, even with MLU, I had to get closer to twice the camera weight to curb vibration. It's not just the mirror that causes the Pentax "recoil", the shutter and the aperture close-down mechanism are also culprits, and with steel-tipped tripod feet on rock you could almost see the whole ensemble "hop" when the shutter was tripped! Superb image quality, and great value for money, but be prepared for a lot of experimentation trying to tame its slow speed gymnastics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian

Im in a similar boat to you, but im going the other way! Ive used the

Pentax 67 for years and have an extensive lens system. however i

recently bought into the Hasselblad system with a 503 CW and 150mm CF

lens. Now as someone whos trying to make a living from the photography

i thought the blad would be a better way to go, with easier to use

flash and swapping backs ete etc, The square is a big change at first

after the comfortable 67 rectangle...but you will get used to

it,however i do find the pentax ia easier to handle , apart from using

it in the portrait position..film loading is quicker too.The debate

regarding vibration and mirror slap drags on and on..for years now!

however i have taken pics this week of a truck with both cameras, and

i compared them both under a good lupe, looking at a numberplate with

the dealers name in very small type under the main number, i can see

no difference, and thats using the mirror lock on both with the same

film and exposure..My only grumble is the Hasselblad locked up on the

seventh frame..and i didnt know what to do (no batteries!) I later

found out about 'the old lockup problem' i was gratefull to have the

pentax with me! Ive used it travelling in the states from death

valley, and monument valley in summer to the Colorado Plateau in

winter and its never locked up. So its horses for courses, if its for

landscapes go for it, and the pentax 672 looks great (ive the old one)

the lenses are lighter and cheaper too! as for projecting slides, the

only med format slide show ive seen was Charlie Waits, and the

difference didnt seem that great to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you miss some of the aspects of 35mm photography,

aren't immediately relating to "square"; find a Hasselblad a bit

cumbersome, why don't you consider the 645 format and in

particular the Pentax 645n. There you've got a decent autofocus,

zoom lenses if you want them, a more than respectable matrix

metering sytem, and lens quality is excellent. You won't need

such a huge tripod, have a superbly damped mirror, and even

turing the camera on its side for verticals is easy because there

are holes for two QR plates. Oh, and it produces excellent

photographs too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian,

 

I am a 'blad user, but I do not think that isolateral symmetrical pictures (square!) are not really the natural format for landscape.

 

I think most people will find it 'easier' to use a 6x7 format for landscapes, at least distant vistas. That said there are many wonderful compositions in every format and I am sure that you will get a 'square' eye in...it is just a bit different.

 

I have added rectangular format in 6x9 for landscapes recently. My decision was in part due to the laziness/timidity of editors not wishing to crop square pictures and the fact that 6x9 trannies stand out from the crowd.

 

Basically, the square format has 'fat' either on the top/bottom or the sides, that a rectangle doesn't have. The means there is often more of a 'problem' with the horizon, which can run more through the centre of the frame, looking wrong. One device is to eliminate the horizon or place it higher/lower in the frame than with a rectangle.

 

Strong linear elements (ie trees) might have a related problem - the 'stretch' that you are after with a tall tree is truncated by the square and there is plenty of space around it diminishing the impact.

 

Classic compositional devices, like golden mean and rule of thirds are harder too. Often good square compositions have features more centred than a rectangular composition or morre than one element balancing themselves, ie two trees to the left and right.

 

That said, these are no reason not to use a square, but just a few tips on retuning your seeing.

 

Are you using a waist level finder? This can get light on it and be very unclear. A sheet a la view cameras helps, and there are eyelevel viewfinders for the 'blad (the Kiev ones are alrightoptically, but the metering is dodgy). I carry an old example of the 'chimney' focussing magnifier (light and eliminates glare from view).

 

Lastly, remember that 645 backs are available for 'blad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the responses. In reply to Frank, I primarily shoot onto transparency which I then scan for use digitally - (And no I don't want a digital camera ;) I don't bother with projection I must admit.

 

What don't I like about the square format - Hmmm. Compositionally I prefer a rectangular format, as you can demonstrate width or (as I prefer) depth. Charlie Waite can't be wrong though!

 

As for focussing - I have a 45 deg prism and acute matte screen - perhaps its because in my predawn adventures the light is very low and an f4 max aperture is a bit darker than I'm used to. I have 50mm and 80mm lenses.

 

And as for weight - I don't reckon thats too much of a problem, being a healthy young Scottish lad - its more the bulk! Its like carrying around a volvo.

 

Many thanks to Wim for the article about 6x6. I will be trying it out this weekend.

 

As for handholding and mirror vibration. I use a manfrotto 055C all the time and always lock the mirror first - so no problems there.

 

I'm sure most converts from 35mm to medium format must have these questions when they start off - its a different way of thinking (and seeing)

 

I'll be trying one of my friend's Pentax 67IIs this weekend (and no doubt he'll try my 553) so it should be interesting.

 

Many thanks again,

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Here goes! I have a Pentax 67II with the 105, 165LS, and 75f4. I have the fancy metering prism on the 67II body, and I love it and think it is a awesome system,,,,,,,,It's for sale! The reason is this: YES it is just like a 35mm,,,,but at 18 pounds (sarcasim here) heavier..Hey I am 6'4" and 350 and even for me this is heavy!

 

******** READ THIS---> I am from New Orleans and was doing some B&W of the French Quarter for a gallery here in Houston. I walked and took pictures,,,ate and took pictures,,,sweat and took pictures. A few hundred images later I went back to Houston and had the pro lab here develop the film. All TMAX 400 120, at 400. Went into the dark room and set my enlarger up for 16X20 prints on Kodak Fine Art Polycontrast FB doubleweight paper,,,then I noticed it,,,I saw first hand what the mirror SLAMMING UP can do to an image. I shot them all hand held at 1/60 and ALL lack crisp edges and the sharpness I was wanting. I went back to New Orleans with my Hassy 500CM and 80mmCF and shot again,,,all handheld at 1/60,,,all other things were equal. The Hasselblad was far in a way superior in sharpness and contrast. Bottom line the Hasselblad out performed the 67II.

 

Simply put I want to KNOW, not think,but KNOW, when I grab my camera case for a shoot I know I have the very best optics made. With my Hasselblad I feel I have just that. All the other stuff,,,6X6 vs 6X7,,,35mm like feel vs non-35mm feel,,,,yadda yadda is all fluff and distracts readers from what really should be the focus,,,the final image. Do not get me wrong the images I took were great,,printed great and sold pleanty of them,,,but at the end of the day,,I know they could have been better had I shot with a Hasselblad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...