Mamiya 7 vs. Hassie vs. Pentax 67

[david_ogrady]

I am stepping up from a Nikon 35mm to MF and need advice on the pros

and cons of different MF systems for my particular needs. I shoot

mostly B&W, do my own printing, and shoot about 60% portratits and

40% landscapes. I have rarely used a tripod; handheld use is a

must. I almost always use natural light. I don't forsee much need

for multiple backs (no polaroid).

 

The M7 seems great for its portabililty and ease of handheld use,

but the trickiness of the RF focusing scares me, and I hate to give

up tight portrait shots because of the M7's limitation in close

focusing. Do people find that the 150 lens is hard to focus crisply?

Also, I'm confused by the filter issues discussed here: Am I right

in believing that I can use a polarizing filter but I have to find

the correct position while it is off the camera?

 

Are the Pentax 67 and Hassie 503 too heavy/bulky for a day hike?

 

I don't mind taking a some time to compose and shoot, but is one

system generally quicker/easier than another?

 

I've shied away from Hassie because of the price, but now I have a

chance to purchase a used Hassie 503CW with 80 and 150 lenses for

$2700. More important than price, however, is having a system that

does what I want.

 

Your thoughts?

[dave_redmann]

I think Mamiya sells a special polarizer for the 7-II that you somehow flip up to cover the viewfinder, adjust, and flip down to take the picture. Look at their web site.

 

The 7-II's 150mm lens could give you maybe a half-length portrait, but to go tighter you'd need to crop. They sell a 210mm, but it is not coupled to the rangefinder (not that doing so would do a lot of good) and I think it can't focus very close. Again, check the web site. Also, I think the maximum aperture is f/8.

 

If I win Powerball tonight, I'll probably buy a 7-II with 65 and 150mm lenses. However, it won't be the 'portrait' cam.

 

Dave

[keith_laban]

David

 

I would avoid the Mamiya for portraits and the Pentax for handholding and hiking. The Hasselblad would serve you well for both portraits and landscapes.

[fotografz]

I'm a long time Leica M user, so for me the Mamiya 7II was a

natural. I find it a great deal easier to focus than the Hasselblad.

Given the larger neg size, having to slightly crop a portrait shot

with the 150 Mamiya gets you to the minimum focusing distance

of the Hassey 150 anyway. The Polarizer for the Mamiya works

exactly like the one for the Leica rangefinder. You flip it up into

the clear, adjust it by looking through it while turning the ring,

then flip it back down into a click position. It's quite fast and easy.

 

Given all that, I still recommend the Hasselblad 503CW and lens

deal because it is a more versitile system. That is, providing you

know its' history. A worn out pro outfit will add considerable cost

to it for reconditioning.

[deardorff8x10]

I have used all of the cameras you mentioned. While to get the ultimate results for what you want to do is difficult with one camera, I will give you my thoughts. For handheld, the Pentax is tricky except when you have good light. On slower exposures, the mirror slap is a problem. If you use fast film and don't want huge enlargements, it will be nice. For landscape, it is fine. While is is very sharp and handholdable, the mirror slap makes things less sharp than I would want.

 

The Mamiya 7 is great for travelling -- light an portable. However, it is fairly useless for portraits.

 

The Hassy is in between -- I found it handholdable, good for portraits, and ok for landscape. Between this and the Pentax, I would choose Hassy because:

 

1) you can rent lenses

2) more accessories

3) I like the square

4) more handholdable

5) easy to change backs (you said this is not important, but I liked having n, n-, n+ backs plus color.

6) somewhat lighter

 

If possible, try renting the different options and see what you like. For what it is worth, many location fashion photographers use Pentax, becuase it is a simple system and reliable. Many studio people use Hassy or Mamiya RZ. Few pros use M7, but it really depends on your needs. The M7 is the lightest and most portable. Like everything, there is a tradeoff

[david_henderson]

The basic premise of a lot of people moving to MF seems to be that somewhere, there's a camera system that will do everything they want. Sadly, for most people this just isn't true, and if you are going to settle on one system you're going to have to make some compromises here.

 

First off I'd suggest you drop the Mamiya 7 idea. This isn't because it's a bad camera - I have one myself - it's because you're going to find it very restrictive for portrait photography which comprises most of your work. You're not going to be able to get tightly composed portraits with a M7, and importantly you're not going to be able to see depth of field through the lens which I'd imagine you'd find important. The 150 lens isn't -to me anyway - the easiest or fastest lens to focus. In dropping the M7 of course you're going to lose an element of hand-holdability and the alternatives are heavier without a doubt. But it is by no means the best choice for what you say is your predominant type of photography. In most respects MF SLR's are a lot more versatile than rangefinders.

 

Between the Hasselblad and the Pentax probably matters less. You would get great images from either of these cameras. What shape of image do you generally want to produce? If you're happy composing square (and I am) then the Hasselblad is a great system. If you generally prefer a rectangle then personally I'd prefer this to be a 67 than a slice out of a 66, but then I like big prints.

 

You should reconsider your stance regarding a tripod. Firstly because there's little merit upgrading to MF if you're going to prejudice the quality through insisting on handholding all the time. To get either of these cameras to give really sharp results you're going to have to use shutter speeds of 1/60 max and probably faster. Can you afford that with the films/apertures you like to use? Bear in mind that MF cameras offer lesser depth of field at any given angle of view than 35mm and so pictures tend to be made at smaller apertures which means longer shutter speeds. Also the use of a tripod promotes a more contemplative style which to me is an important element of what MF photography is about. If you go with the Hasselblad, have you thought about the ergonomics of using a handheld camera with a waist level finder and a hand-held exposure meter in parallel? Training as a juggler might help.

 

Think a bit about the interchangeable backs. Most people who use these don't use polaroids. Setting out in the morning with the capability to take 36 exposures on my Bronicas before I reload is great. I really don't want to stop photographing for a couple of potentially critical minutes at dawn to load film. Equally the ability to have two (or more) different types of film available instantly is more than useful.

 

Neither the Hasselblad nor the Pentax are featherweights. However if you're selective about what you take on long hikes they aren't totally out of court. I carry a Bronica, four lenses, a tc, meter, prism, 2 backs,together with assorted films, filters and tripod for up to several hours a day and I'm in my fifties and not particularly fit.

 

There is no MF camera that weighs the same as a middleweight 35mm; matches the 35mm for versatility and speed of use in all significant respects; is usually hand-holdable; and gives a huge negative. Welcome to the land of compromise. If you want the big image you're going to have to give something up besides money. What's it to be? That said, the rewards are wonderful.

[mark_erickson]

If you want a "do-it-all" MF camera, you might consider looking at the Pentax 645nii. It weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. Pentax glass is excellent, plentiful, and cheap. The mirror damping on the 645nii is reputed to be excellent. Also, 645nii user interface is easy to work with.

 

Most importantly, I suggest you go into a camera store and play with the alternatives. See what feels good to you. It might make your decision much easier to make.

[miles_hecker]

I own a Pentax 645Nii and I believe it can do it all.

With the 45-85mm zoom it's weighs about the same as a Nikon F5 and is superb for landscapes. Add the 120mm macro for portrait and macro work and you're set.

 

See http://www.photo.net/photo/650923

 

It can be handheld, but really if you don't shoot with a tripod the jump to MF won't get you anything. Moving MF cameras don't produce better pictures than moving 35mm cameras Buy a light tripod such as Bogen 3001 and use it! Just do it. If you can't do it, stick with your 35mm system and save the cash.

[thomas_t]

You have gotten some good advice. I'd agree with David about dropping the Mamiya 7II as a stand alone medium format camera. And, like him, I have one and I love mine. But it is a specific tool for a limited purpose. Portraiture is a problem. But more importantly, filter use is cumbersome for polarizer and nearly impossible to do accurately and consistently for ND grad as you can't see DOF or adjust gradation line. I'd heartily second the M7II as a complement but not as a primary MF camera. It is tremendously handholdable and lenses are very sharp!

 

The Pentax 67II is also handholdable, just not as compact as the Mamiya 7II. Can't speak for the earlier models of this camera, as I don't have experience with them. The Pentax 67II is only marginally bigger than my Nikon F5 and slightly heavier. In fact, it is not much heavier or bulkier than most of the oft-perceived-'smaller' 645 cameras from Pentax, Mamiya and Contax.

 

I use it regularly on hikes and I'm an average sized person. Be wary of advice from people regarding cameras where they do not specifically state that they own one. An interesting phenomenon I've noticed is that some people read things online and begin to transfer it to their own memories as if it were a personal experience :)

 

Myriad professional landscape photographers, Ketchum, Frost, K Norris Cook, etc, use it as their primary medium format body.

 

As with any camera, observe the 1/60 shutter rule on handholdability and you will be fine. That is hardly news, I'm sure, to a 35mm user. I've had consistently sharp results from 1/60 and above with the Pentax shooting with prime lenses 45/55/75. But for best results, obviously use a tripod with MF.

 

Can't comment on the Hasselblad, as I don't own one ... although I seem to remember an online memory .... ;)

 

The best thing you can do is to go to a store and actually hold these cameras in your hand, see if the ergonomics fits your tastes and needs. Good luck and cheers.

[greg_smith4]

I was in the same position you were a few months ago. I though that I HAD to have a hand-holdable camera. I bought a Bronica Sq-a. I haven't hand-held it once. I just figure that if I'm paying that much more money, and am carrying around something that much more bigger, I might as well just use a Tri-pod. If you are looking for hand-holdable though, I would suggest the Mamiya rangefinders. I'll add too that my Bronica is bigger than my 35mm, but not much more heavy than my old Nikons. Bronica also has cheaper lenses.

[jay_.]

I don't understand how or why you won't use a tripod, but that's really limiting your results. Between slow lenses (M7II) and mirror slap (P67, Blad)you aren't going to exploit the full advantage of MF by hand holding. So my 1st advice would be to get the Hasselblad and a tripod. I also think eventually you will want a wider lens, like a 50, for your landscape work.

 

If you really can't handle a tripod, then I would recommend a Mamiya C330F or S TLR. For around $1500 you can get a beautiful set with 55, 80 and 180 lenses (get the black lenses, and the "Super" in the case of the 180). The weight is not oppressive, there is the versatility of the interchangeable lenses, and no mirror-slap. Plus, chest-level viewing gives you more stability for handholding (though you can fit an eyelevel prism if you want.)

 

I have also been using a Fuji GA645Zi (55-90 zoom) recently and it is an amazingly versatile MF camera, light, handholdable, and the image quality is excellent.

[db1]

I am lucky enough to have a Hassy 500CM and a Pentax 67. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd be hard pressed not to choose the P67. The lenses are fantastic and cheap compared to the Hassy. I purchased a used 55 lens (newest version) with the box, hood, and soft case for $500. I could never, ever do that with a Hasselblad. I use a very steady tripod with both cameras even though the P67 can be hand held. I have done several day hikes with the Pentax and love it. Yes its a bit heavy but almost every medium format camera is (aside from a Holga but that is a whole different animal).

And the best part about the Pentax is that I can crop the 6x7 image down to 6x6. So if I want a square, I can make one without decreasing the size of the negative. That makes me happy. :)

...david

[gene crumpler]

I too have both hasselblad and pentax 67 cameras. I'd say that the blad would be the best for you as you shoot mostly portraits. The blad is much smaller and a bit lighter than the p67. If you are nearing retirement age like myself, the blad is quite a bit easier to carry for extended periods. I only use the pentax cameras from a car. For trips envolving extensive walking and different modes of travel, the blad is the MF that usually goes.

 

There is a descernable difference in 16x20 prints from the two cameras due to the larger negative of the pentax. Both are hand-holdable, but benefit greatly from use of a tripod. Flash is easier with the Blad.

 

The difference in handling of the two cameras is like driving a truck (pentax) and an up-scale passenger sedan (blad).

 

The price for the 503CW and lenses is fair providing they are in very good condition. Do you know the history of the camera? Although my Blad was in decent shape and came with a "warranty" from the store, I still ended up paying over $600 for complete overhauls of the lens and the body due to the inability of the seller to make repairs(long story).

 

For what you want to do, I'd go for the blad.

[chris_patti1]

David,

 

For the kind of shooting you describe the perfect camera is . . . a Nikon. Aside from the desire to "move up" (a false concept, in my opinion), you don't really say what you are trying to get out of medium format. I would recommend that you think hard about that before you spend thousands on a camera system that might be a disappointment because it is less functional than your present one and doesn't give much better results (because you're hand holding).

[jeff_drew4]

Are you seriously hiking or walking-to-take-pictures? Hikers travel light, photographers haul loaded backpacks and tripods etc. . . :-)

 

Film format seems secondary to you? I have owned and used the P67 and Hassy choices. Both worked for me in short walking distances. Both have great glass and can produce gonzo pix. The P67 is tolerable for weight etc IMHO. When I hike up & down the mountain, I take my BessaR and a couple lenses + K25 & K64. No problemo on the feet and back!

[clyde_rogers]

I use an M7II primarily for landscape.

 

Some folks use the 7 for portraits, but the folks I know of don't

use the 150 at all (I think the 150 requires a tripod), and don't like

tight facial shots. If you hate to give up tight portraits, you

shouldn't---I like that look as well, and use 35mm for those

photos.

 

Another odd thought. You shoot existing light, handheld. Just a

guess---ISO 400 film? Are you going to MF to get rid of grain? I'd

expect that handheld you won't be steady enough to get the fine

detail medium format can provide. You would certainly get the

smooth, relatively grainless look, however. So what about a

Nikon D100? Smooth, grainless, and the fact that it can't get the

fine detail of MF isn't important.

 

Anyway, I agree with the poster who suggests that you may

already have the right camera. Good luck making a decision.

[ShunCheung]

In some cases, it requires "upgrading" to another camera and/or another format to realize you already had what is best for you because you'll miss the fine features you had before.

 

Many years ago Pacific Stereo in California allowed you to trade in speakers. This friend of mine bought a pair of A speakers. After a week or so, he wasn't satisfied with them and traded them in for B speakers; he had to pay a little extra. A few weeks later he upgraded to C and pay some more .... After several trade ins, he ended up with speakers A again, minus a fair amount of money in his pocket, as he had to pay some more every step on his way.

[gene crumpler]

Dave;

 

Looking over your question again, I have some further thoughts. If you want to carry a MF camera on day hikes, I'd suggest that you look at the Velbon MAX 353 tripod. I've been using one with the hassie for the last three months and it works great. It is quite light, is only 18 inches long and is sturdy enough to handle the blad with a 150 lens. As others have stated, if you want to have the "MF Advantage", you really need to start using a tripod of some sort, with MLU and a cable release/self timer. I use a large Bogen tripod (3046 legs/3047 head) for the Pentax 67, which makes the 67 system too heavy to carry any distance. If you really like carrying a lot of equipment, you should take a look at 4x5.

 

As for shooting portraits, get a 45 degree prism finder and a split image screen. I don't know if it is needed on the newer lenses, but on my older hassie, a focus handle on the CT* lenses is a great addition to make focusing fast and precise.

 

There is a reason that hasselblad is used by so many professionals.

[larry_yancy]

I recently bought a used Fuji 645s that is totally manual, bone simple, yet takes absolutely beautiful pictures. (Fuji EBC lenses are incredibly sharp) My price was $495. I normally digitize on an EPSON 2450 scanner and print on an EPSON 2200 printer. Total price (minus computer) of the camera, scanner and state of the art printer was $1,600. With this system I can deliver excellent prints that has my camera dealer wishing he had kept the camera for himself.

[roger_urban3]

"If you really like carrying a lot of equipment, you should

take a

look at 4x5."

 

Not necessarily. My lightweight Cambo Wide 4x5 with 58mm lens and a few holders is either lighter or about the same as a MF outfit, depending on the number of lenses and accessories required for the MF outfit. I'm pretty sure there is also a grafloc film back for the Cambo to allow 6x7 up to 6x12 if they are so inclined. Yes, this would add a little bit more weight but it is certainly well within manageable limits.

 

"There is a reason that hasselblad is used by so many professionals."

 

Yes, the result of lots of advertising has had an effect on the market. The same could be said for Cannon and Nikon equipment. It more poignant question is whether or not the equipment supplies a value for the dollar that is worth it to the photographer, and for the incremental increase in equipment cost what is the comparison cost vis-a-vie competitor equipment? Hasselblad doesn't do so well in that department, I'm afraid.

 

If you look at the results obtainable from a Pentax 67 and a 'Blad but don't tell the viewers what equipment was used, most people couldn't tell the difference. They can sure tell the difference in price, however.

 

Look at the features of a Rollei 6008i system and compare prices for what Hasselblad offers.

 

Hasselblad does have a very strong dealer support presence, and for some this is more important to them for getting their equipment quickly repaired. But it's a dual edged sword: Hard usage of high-priced equipment begs the question of "If the equipment is of such high quality, then shouldn't it be robust enough to take it?"

[david_ogrady]

Thank you to everyone who contributed an answer. I am truly

impressed with your range of knowledge, thoughtfulness and

especially your generosity in giving your time to my question. I

have learned that probably the M7 will not meet my portrait

needs; I will need to get used to using a tripod; I'll have to accept

compromise in MF; and I'll have to try out each camera before

making a decision. Thanks again.

[gene crumpler]

Rodger;

 

I'd have to disagree on your statement that the difference between 6x6 and 6x7 are too small to make a difference. Just a couple of weeks ago I was comparing B&W 14x18 inch prints made with the hassie and the p67. Both were shot on Delta 100 and developed in Ilfosol-s. Because the section from the 6x6 negative was only ~6x4.5 and the 6x7 was the whole negative, the grain in the middle tones was clearly visible in the hassie print and much less obvious on the 6x7.

 

I would also say that in my case, carrying a 4x5 would more bulky, even using ready loads, and heavier. I have used both 4x5 and 2x3 cameras in the past and they were a lot weigh and bulk to carry arround.

 

I carry a 500cm with 80mm (and some times a 150mm)and a contax G1 with a 35 and 90 mm lens in a bag (6x8x3 inches) that is about as big (small?) as a 4x5 camera folded up. The addition of the the Travel Velbon, makes for a nice compact carry around system to shoot both B&W and color. I bought the hassie and contax to use in place of a Nikon system, mamiyia C and the P67's for travel.

 

Yep, hassie is expensive compared to the P67 system. I bought all of the P67 stuff new and if I had to sell it I'd be lucky to get 1/2 of my money back. The hassie stuff is used, but I could get most of my money back if I had to sell. Fortunately, later in life, you get to the point that you can buy all the camera equipment you ever wanted and don't need to sell anything to get it(except perhaps a few shares of stock or bonds).

[gl5]

is the square format better for portaits? i don't know. it seems

that most fashion portraits are done in 6x7 format. on the other

hand, i think for on location portraits, one would do better to have

the camera at waist/chest level and have direct eye contact with

the model. that has been my experience anyway. the portraits

that i've shot with a twin lens camera (camera not in front of my

face) seem to turn out better. so i guess this is where a

hasselblad would come in.

 

personally, i cannot decide. there something to be said for

sticking with a format. i fear that having 35mm, square and or

6x7 images in your portfolio will give off a scatter brain type of

feel.

[duncan_ross1]

I don't think it would give a scatterbrained type of feel to your porfolio to have multiple formats in your portfolio. The camera is just a tool - once you know what you will be using it for and how you will be using it, the choices get narrowed down. If you are doing candid photos at a wedding reception and formal portraits, you will probably need a 35mm system AND a medium format system. How much revenue (or how much enjoyment in the case of a hobby) comes from each endeavor should drive the choice of where to invest the most. You won't find one system that does everything well unless you live with the limitations of the 35mm film size (small, light, fast shutter, etc).

 

Getting back to the original post - I'd strongly suggest a tripod for your work. This will probably make a larger difference than moving to 6x4.5. Handholding an MF camera after bothering to haul it along with you on a hike is a waste of $$ - stay in 35mm if that is how you will use it. In 35mm you will at least have faster shutter speeds to offset the camera movement somewhat.

 

For myself, I started with Kowa66 equipment, which worked well for many years, but was too heavy to carry around (not that it stopped me from doing so, I just got tired). I bought a Mamiya 7 for my hiking work and live with the tradeoff in filter use. For portraits I use an RZ67. This could just as easily been a Rollei or Hasslebad - I just found that the RZ was a better value for me at the time. Portraits are a small component of what I do. I also use this system for landscape if I don't have far to walk. For people/action/sports I use a 35mm system. I find that the fast shutter and image stabilization is an advantage for sports work like sailing, where a tripod really is not an option. Again, It's just a tool - and it is frustrating that there is not a "one size fits all" solution.

[john clark]

Hmmmm... a lot of negative vibes about 'losing the advantage of MF when handholding'. This is true under certain conditions, but to be brutally honest I have just returned from a trip to Tuscany with my M7-II and 43 and 80mm lenses (the 150 stayed at home, sadly).

 

For daytime shooting, using 100 speed film or greater, I can find next to no difference between my handheld shots and those taken on the tripod with cable release (Manfrotto/Arca B1/RRS plate) - for situations where the shutter speed was faster than 1/60s. I'm looking hard but I can't find it. Of course, handholding precludes the long exposure, the stop-down near:far shots and shots indoors or at times when the light was poor.

 

However, in good light and with good technique, handholding the M7 is not prone to any appreciable resolution loss in my experience. I know that might seem hard to believe, but I only tell it like I have found it.

 

John