I've been looking for a Pentax 67, but then...

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, the Pentax 645 is far more versatile for sure. Plus, you can later pick up a digital body and use all your lenses on that. They might not be as good as the dedicated digital lenses, but they could get you by. Yup, you can use your 67 lenses on the 645 via an adapter. All that said, I won't give up that big 6X7 negative for everything the 645 has. I like big negative!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've owned all the systems being discussed - RB/RZ67, Pentax 67, Hasselblad 500CM, and I currently have access to a Fuji GX680. All of the bigger negative cameras are beasts. I'm currently shooting a Pentax 67 - I love it for the ease of hand-holding (if you get one, do NOT skip the wood hand grip - it is essential, IMO), and the range of lenses that are generally speaking much more affordable than their counterparts in those other systems. I currently have the 35 Fisheye, 45, 55, 75, 90, 105, 120 Soft Focus, 135 macro, 165, and the 400 f4 with 2x extender. Back in my Hasselblad days I had just the Superwide, 50, 80, and 120 lenses. And I probably spent more on the three (50,80,120) than I have on the total Pentax glass kit I have.

My one big gripe with the Pentax is that it has certain features that are not terribly robust (notably the meter chain and the film advance - I have four bodies, one of which has a broken meter chain which I don't care about because I don't use the meter prism, and the other three have broken film advance mechanisms). My most reliable and robust camera was the RB 67, followed by the Hasselblad. I had a bad run of luck with the RZ - I had two RZ bodies both of which had multiple repeated failures.

The thing about Hasselblads is that if you don't use them regularly, they will start to fail (and fail very expensively) due to lack of use. I had a 500C body that I put up on a shelf because I had gotten a 500CM with the acute-matte screen. The air bladder mechanism that regulates the rear doors of the body failed and that was a $400 repair back in 1996.

The glass on all of them is not an issue - you can say that Hasselblad glass is sharper/more contrasty, and you're probably right. But honestly, I've never been disappointed by the images I've shot with any of them, and the only way you could tell which camera shot which is aspect ratio ruling in/out the Hasselblad.

Since you are considering square format, I'm going to toss another contender into the ring that nobody else has mentioned.

Rolleiflex.

I know there are no interchangeable lens Rollei TLRs. You've got three options - standard Rolleiflex, RolleiWide, and TeleRollei. I have a pair of standard Rolleis and a Tele. After being serviced, they have been the most reliable cameras I've ever had, despite being 70+years old. There is an advantage to having one and only one lens option - it makes you think about the image in front of you rather than "what if...". They're also light (relatively speaking) and compact, and when you want to shoot on the street, they're really good at stealth because they have no mirror slap and the leaf shutter on them is at least as quiet as a Leica 35mm. Using the waist-level finder also means you can literally shoot from the hip and people won't realize you're photographing them.
The first time I traveled with my Rollei, I had a lot of anxiety about if it would be too limiting. I took it to Paris, shot on the street, in museums, at night, on a tripod and handheld. I ended up with some of the best photos of my life. The Rolleis have since been with me to Rome and Florence, Mexico City, Toronto, and New York City, as well as extensive use here at home.
Don't feel the standard 80mm limits you for portraiture - there have been plenty of world-famous portrait photos taken with a standard Rollei. If you get a vintage Tele Rollei, you'll want to invest in a Rolleinar closeup lens kit for it as the minimum focus on the Tele is almost 3 meters without the closeup lens. There is a modern Rollei 4.0FT version that will focus down to 1.5-ish meters without the closeup adapter, but those are selling (when you can find them) for well over your stated budget.

 

[Analogski]

I've owned all the systems being discussed - RB/RZ67, Pentax 67, Hasselblad 500CM, and I currently have access to a Fuji GX680. All of the bigger negative cameras are beasts. I'm currently shooting a Pentax 67 - I love it for the ease of hand-holding (if you get one, do NOT skip the wood hand grip - it is essential, IMO), and the range of lenses that are generally speaking much more affordable than their counterparts in those other systems. I currently have the 35 Fisheye, 45, 55, 75, 90, 105, 120 Soft Focus, 135 macro, 165, and the 400 f4 with 2x extender. Back in my Hasselblad days I had just the Superwide, 50, 80, and 120 lenses. And I probably spent more on the three (50,80,120) than I have on the total Pentax glass kit I have.

My one big gripe with the Pentax is that it has certain features that are not terribly robust (notably the meter chain and the film advance - I have four bodies, one of which has a broken meter chain which I don't care about because I don't use the meter prism, and the other three have broken film advance mechanisms). My most reliable and robust camera was the RB 67, followed by the Hasselblad. I had a bad run of luck with the RZ - I had two RZ bodies both of which had multiple repeated failures.

The thing about Hasselblads is that if you don't use them regularly, they will start to fail (and fail very expensively) due to lack of use. I had a 500C body that I put up on a shelf because I had gotten a 500CM with the acute-matte screen. The air bladder mechanism that regulates the rear doors of the body failed and that was a $400 repair back in 1996.

The glass on all of them is not an issue - you can say that Hasselblad glass is sharper/more contrasty, and you're probably right. But honestly, I've never been disappointed by the images I've shot with any of them, and the only way you could tell which camera shot which is aspect ratio ruling in/out the Hasselblad.

Since you are considering square format, I'm going to toss another contender into the ring that nobody else has mentioned.

Rolleiflex.

I know there are no interchangeable lens Rollei TLRs. You've got three options - standard Rolleiflex, RolleiWide, and TeleRollei. I have a pair of standard Rolleis and a Tele. After being serviced, they have been the most reliable cameras I've ever had, despite being 70+years old. There is an advantage to having one and only one lens option - it makes you think about the image in front of you rather than "what if...". They're also light (relatively speaking) and compact, and when you want to shoot on the street, they're really good at stealth because they have no mirror slap and the leaf shutter on them is at least as quiet as a Leica 35mm. Using the waist-level finder also means you can literally shoot from the hip and people won't realize you're photographing them.
The first time I traveled with my Rollei, I had a lot of anxiety about if it would be too limiting. I took it to Paris, shot on the street, in museums, at night, on a tripod and handheld. I ended up with some of the best photos of my life. The Rolleis have since been with me to Rome and Florence, Mexico City, Toronto, and New York City, as well as extensive use here at home.
Don't feel the standard 80mm limits you for portraiture - there have been plenty of world-famous portrait photos taken with a standard Rollei. If you get a vintage Tele Rollei, you'll want to invest in a Rolleinar closeup lens kit for it as the minimum focus on the Tele is almost 3 meters without the closeup lens. There is a modern Rollei 4.0FT version that will focus down to 1.5-ish meters without the closeup adapter, but those are selling (when you can find them) for well over your stated budget.

Thanks! Your thoughts and advice are nice to read and I take them into consideration.

About the Rolleiflex.... I own a 3.5F. I love this camera! Sometimes it punishes me because it's off focus, but that's my fault of course... I shoot with the lens too open.
It's whistle quiet and it isn't so in your face. The thing is, I like to have different experience from time to time...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thanks! Your thoughts and advice are nice to read and I take them into consideration.

About the Rolleiflex.... I own a 3.5F. I love this camera! Sometimes it punishes me because it's off focus, but that's my fault of course... I shoot with the lens too open.
It's whistle quiet and it isn't so in your face. The thing is, I like to have different experience from time to time...

Look into getting a bright screen fitted to your 3.5 - it will make a world of difference. I can nail focus on my 2.8E wide open with a bright screen.

 

[Analogski]

Look into getting a bright screen fitted to your 3.5 - it will make a world of difference. I can nail focus on my 2.8E wide open with a bright screen.

I've got a Rick Olsson Brightscreen (splitscreen). Works fantastic, my eyes are just playing a trick on me I guess...

 

[Pieter12]

I've got a Rick Olsson Brightscreen (splitscreen). Works fantastic, my eyes are just playing a trick on me I guess...

The mirror can get pretty grungy, too and is easy to replace.

 

[Prest_400]

Yes, the Pentax 645 is far more versatile for sure. Plus, you can later pick up a digital body and use all your lenses on that. They might not be as good as the dedicated digital lenses, but they could get you by. Yup, you can use your 67 lenses on the 645 via an adapter. All that said, I won't give up that big 6X7 negative for everything the 645 has. I like big negative!

I had gotten a 645n for a great price and added the 35mm ultrawide. Call it my Budget SWC. It is not, and I could already think of disagreement by Hasselblad owners; but like some old contemporary posts praising the alternative Japanese systems, it's a good performing workhorse. I know, I live in Hasselblad homeland but they are not cheap and even some owners confessed to me what @TheFlyingCamera mentions maintenance wise, plus that also parts are also an issue for some things and mechanics themselves are not that good.

Anyways the 645n is great, but the 75mm standard is going for quite some premium (zooms are cheap!), whirrs quite a bit but it's super convenient with the automation... However it's 645. Great mileage on the film but not those huge negs of 6x7. I'm not that partial with 6x6 and 645 feels great, pre-cropped and extra frames.
The 6x7 has the mythical 105mm available in the system.

The first time I traveled with my Rollei, I had a lot of anxiety about if it would be too limiting. I took it to Paris, shot on the street, in museums, at night, on a tripod and handheld. I ended up with some of the best photos of my life. The Rolleis have since been with me to Rome and Florence, Mexico City, Toronto, and New York City, as well as extensive use here at home.

It's another style indeed. I lugged a Texas leica 6x9 in 2024 for a trip, then the P645 this year. It works but with the weight and volume considerations. Rolleis have a really classy thing going on for them. I might eventually bite for one down the line, but always have been on that team that likes them.
As of Tessar Types I have a Super Ikonta IV which is fine, and good for B&W travel work. But I got used to more modern and complex designs that sometimes I feel the classic 4 element design does not quite live up to (specially wider open).

 

[dave olson]

I have a Pentax 6x7, Hasselblad, and Pentax 6.45 systems. I have used them all over the years that I was doing editorial photography. I also shot and maintained my own stock photo library. Walking around street photography can be done with any of the three systems. There are drawbacks: reloading ease, number of lenses carried, and body stamina. Yes, a 6x7 negative or transparency is wonderful to hold and view. The 6x6 lends itself to a square photo cover as well as cropping. The 6x4.5 format has been used for many project assignments with minimal or no cropping, by framing in the viewfinder. Go and physically hold all three formats, judging which you will be most compatible with.

 

[braxus]

You can do what I do and use both the 645N and the P67 (which in my case is the 67ii). The 67 lenses do adapt easily to the 645, but of course are manual focus. I had to get the split screen focussing screen for the 645N to help focus the manual focus lenses. The normal 645N screen does not have the split screen option. Its an extra 400 bucks to find one if you want it. I am currently using the regular 645, as Im waiting on another 645N. I seriously dont see the benefit of using a square frame for most photography, as its easier to compose with a rectangle. And there is less frame waste. I shoot the 67 before I shoot the 645. I use the 645 when I need more shots on a roll, or want the autofocus. I've missed focus on both the old 67 cameras as well as the old 645. Autofocus helps.

 

[Tom Taylor]

A good accessory for the P645 is the magnifier: it's small, doesn't protrude from the back like the 67 magnifier does so you can store it in your pack without having to removing it from the camera, and it is priced right used <$100 on ebay. I have one for the 67II and 645NII. A very valuable tool for critical focusing.