Hasselblad user need help choosing a Pentax 67

[zack_zoll]

<p>Just to complicate things Q.G. ... the prism might not be unnecessary on the square format after all. I'm six feet tall, and even if I'm wearing shoes with a heel I still have trouble taking portraits of anyone over about 5'9", or 5'6" in stilettos, without looking slightly up their nose.</p>

<p>But I also wear fairly small glasses, which means that I can't use the WLF out of the corner of my eye. If I did not wear glasses, or if I wore bigger ones, I might be able to use the WLF on taller subjects. But as it is, I keep a prism in my bag for photographing tall people, and frequently use the prism when walking around town, in case I bump into any tall people and want to take their picture.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Indeed, <b>Zack</b>.<br>But at least you don't need it to make using a camera flipped over onto its side possible.<br><br><br>The choice between square or rectangular, <b>D</b>, should, i think, not be one between one camera or another. You can crop any other aspect ratio to any other aspect ratio.<br>So would switching to 6x7 from 6x6 indeed offer a solution to the portability/handholdability issue (which it does not, if you'd ask me), you could still compose and create square images. Though not as convenient (you'd have to mask the viewfinder) and you would be throwing away film.<br><br>Composition, or rather the subject/scene you want to capture, often demands a different final aspect ratio than the one of the camera it is captured with. So often, the aspect ratio the camera happens to offer should not be given too much influence on how the final image turns out.<br>But there is 'merit' in composing a scene within a given frame also.<br>'Bottom line' is that the scene, or the image we envisioned and trying to create, should be in the lead anytime we feel uncomfortable with what the camera's aspect ratio would dictate.

[d_purdy]

<p>That is all logical Q.G. but for me (and I think many are like me) using a camera and making photographs is not logical or linear or pre determined, it is a matter of responding to what is in my view finder. I have something of a relationship with my viewfinder. I would have to mask off my square finder to see rectangles. Irritating to me for various reasons. I like switching cameras. I like both my cameras and I never crop.<br>

Dennis</p>

[jim_peterson2]

 

 

<p>Well, this topic has gone around quite a bit, making for some interesting discussions. But if we take it back to the OP, there are three factors cited. <br>

1. Wants something more portable than the 501 system.<br>

2. Wants something less awkward to hold off the tripod<br>

3. Likes the idea of a built in meter<br>

One concern is making the switch from square to rectangle viewing frame<br>

And he adds the comment that he does almost all his shooting with one lens; an 80mm<br>

Finally he is concerned about rangefinders because of lack of experience with them.<br>

So... it seems that most everyone agrees that a Pentax 67 and probably any Bronica SLR won't be significantly more portable than the 501. And others have pointed out that the addition of a grip to the Blad will make it more holdable off the tripod.<br>

So many folks will just suggest staying with what he has. That may be a good option. But the whole reason for this thread is because he wants a change.<br>

And I just don't know how you can answer without going down the rangefinder road. Personally I think the Fuji GF670 is the almost perfect answer. Extremely portable and easy to hold (although it does take some getting used to), has a very accurate and usable built in meter, offers both 6x6 and 6x7 without the hassle of carrying and changing film backs, it has an 80mm lens (or you can get the WA version) and the optics are second to none! If the OP would at least try it out and address his concerns about unfamiliarity with rangefinders, I think he would find the GF670 to be an ideal solution!</p>

 

 

[donbright]

<p>To your point, Jim, the OP did mention environmental portraiture use off tripod which is, or can be a slow process of shooting, so the GF-670 wouldn't get in the way, and is certainly light. Great camera, wouldn't we all like to get our hands on one. The viewfinder does crop to 85% of the image if that's important enough to the OP.</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>The guidelines do crop some but being a rangefinder, you can see well beyond the lines so while you don't know exactly where the image will be cut, you can see everything that will be captured and more.<br>

I love this camera and was happy to sell my RB 67 Pro SD, Voigtlander Bessa-R and Fuji Klasse in order to finance it, even though all three were very nice cameras!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Not so logical, i think, <b>D</b>. More a matter of having a relationship, more with what's in front of the camera than with the viewfinder of the camera.<br>I know how easy it is to get drawn in by what the viewfinder shows, rather than see where in what you can see through that thing is the image you are after. Fall prey to it myself once and again, catching myself composing to the frame the camera provides. A matter of relaxing, getting convenient, too much, i think.<br><br>But be that as it may, i think that when you find yourself trapped between wanting one format because you like it, wanting a camera having another 'native' format for other pressing reasons, a way out is offered by remembering that the aspect ratio the camera happens to offer is not a command. It's not imperative to see and create images that 'fill' that particular format.<br>A compromise, sure. You will be wasting film. And may need to mask the viewfinder if you find it's too compelling. But it can work.

[Uhooru]

<p>I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Mamiya 7 or 7II. Light yet durable, fabulous lenses if not a lot of them and a beautiful and bright rangefinder. I've found the meter to be quite good and it takes wonderful pictures. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<b>Barry</b>, the Mamiya 7 (and other rangefinders) have already been given a mention. ;-)<br><br>Perhaps the solution, given that other MF SLRs will not be more handholdable than the camera the OP is looking to replace.

[bob_cook]

<p>If the OP could get past the rangefinder issue, then my vote would be for a Mamiya 6. As I noted above, I've owned all of them. The Mamiya 6 has all of the needed credentials: lighter; 6X6; built-in meter. Not to mention spectacular lenses. The 50mm is the best I've ever owned or used. Great for environmental portraiture, as well.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>I got rid of a Pentax 67 and switched to Hasselblad because I wanted something more portable. If I wanted something more portable than that, I might try a Pentax 645. It has a meter. Not 6 x 6 though.</p>

<p>My 67 would hang up in mid-cycle and I would lose the picture whenever the battery died. And it died a lot.</p>

<p>Oh wait: more portable than a Hasselblad? I use a Leica for that.</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>Sounds like your P67 was broken. I'd take a Hasselblad in place of that too!!! <br>

As for the Leica, definitely portable, but this OP wants portability without stepping down to small format.</p>

[horse bodotes]

<p>Interesting thread. Having much experience w/ Hassy, Pentax 67 and Bronica SQ; I'm not sure exactly what the OP is going to accomplish by switching. At risk of pissing off some, I found the 67 system to be a rather amateurish and inconsistent system. The body was pretty good ergonomically, but the weight distribution and mirror slap mad the thing a non-starter for me. As well, the lenses are hit or miss: some good, some OK, and a few that are just poor performers.</p>

<p>Call me a prima dona, but reloading film every 10 shots is simply barbaric, for lack of a more suitable word. And finally, in as much as I (used to) like printing from 6x7 negatives, I love shooting the 6x6 format. Love means never having to rotate the camera.</p>

<p>I like the SQ (or SQ-A/B) system, but I can't really see any advantages over a perfectly good 'blad system. The SQ stuff might be a little lighter and a little less expensive to replace in case of an accident, but otherwise why change? Either system will require a good grip for off-tripod use.</p>

<p>Depending on a the age of your H-system, it can probably use a digital back system. The SQ-system can reportedly use digital backs designed for the Hassy V-system via an adapter plate from Silvestri or Kapture Group, but IMO this sounds like a bit of a kludge solution. Maybe not. Mamiya 6? I tried it once, but it wasn't for me. Great design and a good system, but the physical size, limited lens selection and lack of accommodation for close-up shots made it not my top choice for field work. Being an old Leica guy, I do like the rangefinder system but prefer TTL viewing for critical landscape work.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Horse-<br>

"At risk of pissing off some, I found the 67 system to be a rather amateurish..."<br>

Really? Do ya think?<br>

<br>

Steve<br>

Moderator</p>

[addicted2light]

<p>Jon,<br /> summing up I gather you want a camera that:</p>

<p><em>1) is more portable than a 'blad</em><br /><em> 2) with a light meter</em><br /><em> 3) you can use without carrying a tripod.</em></p>

<p>I didn't use the 67II, but I had at the same time (and often used to shot shoulder to shoulder) a Pentax 6x7 (replaced after a bit with a 67), an Hasselblad 500c/m with the Planar practically "glued" on and a Fuji GS645 - the folding kind.</p>

<p>Based on my experience I'd say forget the Pentax 6x7 or 67 (not sure about the 67II); they are fine cameras, but heavy, and the Pentax glass for the 67 system is really really good, just not Zeiss good IMHO - I had 45mm, 75 Tak, 105 and the 165/2.8 plus the 2x. More, you'll fight all the time against shutter induced vibrations due the gigantic curtains.</p>

<p>I heard very high praises of the Mamiya 6 ad 7, but I never had the chance to try one. But I know for a fact that a Fuji GS645 it's an hell of a camera, with an even more hell of a lens.</p>

<p>Yes, it's a rangefinder, but that makes it really easy to focus even in bad light, and has a pretty accurate meter. If you look at my portfolio you will see that I've had more keepers with the Fuji alone than with all the other cameras I had/have combined. Want to know why? Because it weights nothing and folded enters in a large pocket, so it was almost always with me.</p>

<p>And don't get fooled by the apparently small-ish format (4.5x6cm); thanks to its amazing lens and the zero vibrations its negatives were actually most of the time - read: almost always - sharper than the ones I got with the Pentax! I was able to shoot with it even in available darkness with Leica-like shutter times.</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>I loved my GS645 too, but when I had the opportunity to trade it and some others in for the GF670 I did so without hesitation and have never looked back. The size really isn't that much different between the 645 and the 670. My guess is that if you like the GS you'll absolutely love the GF, but that's just me.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Well, OP....I don't know where you went, but if you really are a Hasselblad user needing help choosing a Pentax 67, forget it. Get a Pentax 67II.</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>The size really isn't that much different between the 645 and the 670.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jim, my GS645 was the older one, with the folding bellows. So I was able to bring it around in a pocket. </p>

<p>I guess if you can do the same with the GF670 we're talking about really large pockets :)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Well, OP....I don't know where you went, but if you really are a Hasselblad user needing help choosing a Pentax 67, forget it. Get a Pentax 67II."</i><br><br>Don't know why we are running repeats now, but seeing that we are: don't.<br><br>A Pentax 67 II may be the better choice, if the choice is between a Pentax 67 and a Pentax 67 II.<br><br>It isn't.<br>Neither P67 or P67II is the answer to your question, for all the reasons already mentioned.

[jim_peterson2]

<p>Gianluca, yes I know which camera you have. I owned one until about 6 months ago. <a href="http://news.mapcamera.com/mapsele.php?itemid=7118">Here is an article</a> (sorry it's in Japanese) talking about the similarities of the GS645 and the GF670. If you look at the photos you'll see that they really are not all that different in size.</p>

[addicted2light]

<p>Jim, my bad.</p>

<p>When you talked about the GF670 I was thinking at the old GW670! Now I understand because you made the change and never looked back...</p>

[donbright]

<p><em>"Hasselblad user need help choosing a Pentax 67" </em><br /> <em><br /></em>The OP wants a Pentax 67, right? The 67II is the better choice. Actually very simple.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Okay folks, unless the OP chimes in further, let's not chase further down this rabbit hole. <br>

Your Moderator</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

Oh sorry, this thread is on fire I see!

Well, I believe the real reason I am thinking is because I am getting tired of having to carry a meter. I

miss AP. But maybe thats not good enough reason to change systems. Perhaps I should try one of

those Hassy finders with the built in meter? Although I understand they are heavy

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>I am getting tired of having to carry a meter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jon, if you have a smartphone have you tried PocketLightMeter? It is a FREE iPhone app, but I'm pretty sure there is a version for Android too (I'm not affiliated with this guys in every way, I just like their app a lot).</p>

<p>It works like a charm, you can also calibrate it, and it doubles even as a spot meter! And I'm pretty sure you will have your phone with you every way… For me it replaced the old Sekonic, YMMV</p>

<p>If you want you may check my old review here:<br>

<a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2011/11/30/review-pocket-light-meter-for-iphone/">http://www.addicted2light.com/2011/11/30/review-pocket-light-meter-for-iphone/</a></p>