Hasselblad user need help choosing a Pentax 67

I am interested in picking up a 67. I am currently using the Hasselblad system but want something more portable.

The Blad 501 that I currently use is great, and I love shooting square, but its awkward to hold off the tripod I find.

Where-as the Pentax with the wooden grip seems a little easier to use on the fly.

Part of my concern is, I am so used to seeing in the square format will I be able to go back and forth to the 6 X 7.

Another reason I am considering the 67 is the built in meter on the 67II.

With the Hasselblad I do mostly environmental portrait work and one lens is almost glued to the body (the 80mm).

I suspect that will be a similar case with the Pentax.

And yes I have considered the Mamiya 6 but my concern is that its a rangefinder and I have no experience using

rangefinders.

Anyway, just throwing some thoughts out there

That wouldnt be my choice for a more portable camera. I also find the prism to be a little dark, and you could inexpensively buy a metered

prism. You would probably have a much harder time having an older, less popular camera serviced. Also, the Hasselblad grip is also

comfortable. Just some of my thoughts.

<p>A Rolleiflex TLR is very easy to hand-hold. The later models have coupled meters, and allow for prism finders.</p>

<p>The question seems to have a split point, its titled Pentax 67, but the 67II meter is what's sought after. There's nothing like the AE meter of the Pentax 67II, and they don't interchange with the 67. As for the square verses 6x7 format, I personally found the opposite where as I couldn't make the square work, but other Photographers readily admit, its easier for square format users to adapt to the rectangle, than from the rectangle to the square, this may not be a universal finding, but I can see this. The Pentax 67II, by the way has a built in grip, and with a 105 2.4 lens, you should adapt easily from the 80mm Hasselblad.</p>

<p>Having used both, I'd definitely stick with the 'Blad. As Michael says, fit a grip (I really like the Hasselblad pistol grip) and a metered prism. The Pentax will be no lighter and in my opinion, is not so pleasant a machine to use.</p>

 

<p>I've used both quite a bit, and owned both systems at the same time for a short period. The Pentax 67II is not more portable. With a similar complement of lenses it will weigh just a little more than a 501. I did find the Pentax more convenient to use, especially since the AE prism was excellent. Note that the Pentax is somewhat more difficult to load - it's a quirky issue that used to frustrate me when I needed to change film quickly.<br>

The Pentax also has a couple of zooms that perform very well.<br>

I would not worry too much about the square vs rectangle issue. I prefer the square, but it is always available in the 6X7 rectangle.</p>

<p>At the risk of being charged with heresy, I suggest you check out the Bronica SQAi, a 6x6 camera. It's a bit lighter than the Hasselblad, as I recall. It has a very nice attachable grip with thumb winder, called the Speed Grip. The camera handles similarly to a 35mm SLR with it attached.<br /> The latest meter prism (SQ-i AE) is barely larger than the plain prism, if at all. It offers manual, AE w/exposure lock, LCD readout w/illuminator, adjustable eyepiece diopter, etc. Nice and modern.<br /> The PS lenses are well-respected. They aren't Zeiss, but what else is?</p>

<p>Most of my travel work is done with the P67 off the tripod and I do fine with it. But just because it suits me, doesn't mean it suits all shooters looking for hand held/portability. It's a subjective opinion and I suggest trying one out first before making a decision.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm not a Pentax 67 fan. That's mostly because of the godawful shutter sync though. But I like Araki, and he used to swear by the thing.</p>

<p>But portable it ain't, unless you're a larger-than-average bear. If you really want portable, then suck it up and buy the Mamiya rangefinder. The Rollei with meter was a good suggestion, but frankly a 501 with a waist-level finder isn't that much larger than a Rollei, unless you're really bothered by the fact that you need to carry a separate meter.</p>

<p>There's nothing heretical about suggesting the SQ-A over the Pentax 67. I own both and would take the Bronica for portability any day. If you want to go 6x7 the GS-1 is even better and about the same weight. I use my Pentax 67 on a tripod 90% of the time but love hand holding the Bronicas.<br>

You mentioned the Mamiya 6 and I would encourage you to look into it. Much more portable! I love mine and use it a lot. You could probably get by with just the standard lens and the WA lens. Both are excellent.<br>

But if you are happy with one lens, really want portability, and are undecided between 6x6 and 6x7, the Fuji GF670 sounds like the perfect match. It is a beauty to behold.<br>

Yes, rangefinders are different from SLRs and TLRs but I've found the adjustment to be rather manageable. </p>

<p>The heresy I was referring to was suggesting an SQ Bronica as a replacement for the Hasselblad. On some forums, that will get you strung up and skinned!</p>

<p>Yes, yes, I know. But I'm definitely a "blue collar" photography sort of guy who only got into medium format because used equipment is so cheap now days. I have lots of respect for Hasselblad, Roleiflex and Leica but doubt I'll ever be able to afford any of them. In the mean time I love the results I get with Pentax, Bronica, Mamiya, Fuji, and Yashica.</p>

<p>While I've ragged on Bronica A LOT for not being as good as a Hassy, the fact remains that it is a good camera. I don't like it, but it's still a good camera.</p>

<p>Also, I think that as far as price vs. quality, the Yashica-Mat 124G may be the best camera ever built. There were a lot of times when I wish my Yashica negs had been shot with my Hasselblad, and I finally sold my last 'Mat. But back when I had enough free time that I could shoot whatever I wanted to shoot without worrying about the final result, the 'Mat was always the camera I grabbed when I was going out the door. It's just so enjoyable to use.</p>

<p>If you can deal with the rangefinder, I would argue that the Mamiya 7 (and 7II) is the only man-portable "budget" camera that rivals the quality of the German brands. But if you can't, then it seems that the wisest choice would be to buy a grip and a prism for your Hassy. Depending on the prism you pick, it should cost about the same as buying a 'Mat, Bronnie, or Pentax, and will allow you to stay in a single system. It's larger than a Pentax 67 wearing an equivalent lens, but is also a little bit lighter. I also find that the weight of the Pentax, and the position of the grip, cause more strain on my wrist than the Hassy.</p>

[Yes, yes... a double post once again...]

Whether it be heresy or not: changing a Hasselblad for a Hasselblad look-a-like will not be the answer to wanting <i>"something more portable. [that's not] awkward to hold off the tripod"</i>.<br><br>Nor, would i say, will the Pentax be. Or a Bronica GS.

In the past I carried a P67 around and I wouldn't recommend it as a highly portable camera as it is so heavy and slow to focus accurately. My recommendation is a Fuji GW690 rangefinder. Light, relatively compact and excellent quality. With the 90mm lens you'll get a slightly wider view than 80mm on the Blad. It doesn't have a built in meter - just buy an old hand held one.

<p>Once again, when the weight of Pentax 67s is issued in the debate, there is confusion between the 67, and the 67II. The 67II weighs 2.7 lbs, that is as light as any Medium format camera. Just sayn.</p>

You say well, Don.<br>But it's 5.3 lbs once you add on the prism and a lens. That's more than, say, a motorized Hasselblad EL(...) model, loaded with batteries, with lens (though without prism. Not needed with the square format).<br>;-)

<p>True, and furthermore a 501CM weighs in at 1.3 lbs, body only, and with focusing hood, 80mm lens, and A12 back, its at, 3.25 lbs. Certainly Hasselblad pulls off the weight war, as Victor would have wanted it, if there is one, or should have been one, but I just have to keep in order that there is constant confusion over the weight differential between the P67, and P67II big time, no pun intended.</p>

As long as we agree, then, that the P67II is not <i>"as light as any Medium format camera"</i>. Most (not just HB) weigh quite a bit less.<br>Just sayin'. ;-)

<p>Yes, and particularly the P67 lenses don't help, but, correction the 2.7 lbs of the 67II includes the prism.</p>

There must be two different P 67 II versions then. ;-)<br>According to the manual, it's 1.66 kg /58.6 oz including AE prism, excluding batteries. That's as good as 3.7 lbs, a full pound more.<br>But anyway, it's not <i>"as light as [etc.]"</i>.

<p>Q.G. I stand corrected, it is 3.65 lbs with AE finder for the 67II.</p>

<p>Q.G.,<br>

My recommendation of the SQAi had to do with the original complaint that the Hasselblad is awkward to hold off the tripod. The Bronica will be little different in handling without the Speed Grip, and with the shutter speed selector on the body, could be more awkward to some.<br>

With the Speed Grip the handling is greatly changed, with the right hand doing more supporting and steadying.</p>

<p>As to portability, the Bronica is slightly lighter, but no medium format 6x6 SLR is going to be much lighter than the Hasselblad. If portability relates also to bulk, the Bronica will be similar, though the newest meter prism is commendably compact, being about the same size as the plain eye-level or 45 degree finder.</p>

<p>Regarding the question of square and rectangle, I go back and forth because I get tired of both. My square is a Rolleiflex and I fall in love with it's perspective and the square for long periods of time and then I need get away from the square. My 6x7 is a Pentax 67 and the lens I most often use is the later version 55mm. I also love this camera and it's perspective and the rectangle. To say it is heavy is relative or comparative. The 55mm lens is not heavy and the camera with lens might be considered heavy but I don't notice it is. I can walk with it all day long and hand hold it just fine. What gets heavy is if I load a bag up with all 6 of my P67 lenses. Back ache time. But I figured out I am a one lens guy anyway.<br>

The difference between square and rectangle for me is that a square is too center oriented. The corners and the center pull together to make it hard to have side to side "movement" so the compositions for me become static and still like a circle with square corners. The rectangle more easily allows off center compositions with a feeling of side to side movement... or top to bottom.<br>

At least that is how it is for me.<br>

Dennis</p>