Pentax 67 sharper than Hasselblad?

jordanstarr · Mar 8, 2010

....or at least on par?

Just a recent experience I've had:
I finished up an 8 month documentary project. I shot 70% of my work in 120 with a Pentax 67 and Hasselblad 500cm. I have a full arsenal of lenses for both and used Tri-x and Plus-x almost exclusively. I'm now scanning everything with my new Nikon 8000 scanner (about 300 frames). And I know the hype -Hasselblad rules, the rest drool. But I'm scanning my Pentax 6x7 negs against my Hasselblad 6x6 negs and I'm starting to seriously question the quality of Hasselblad when compared to Pentax.

I haven't done a "shot by shot" in scientifically sound and controlled comparisons, but I did set up the same shot on the same tripod with the two systems and consistently, the Pentax seems to beat the Hassy, not with this shot, but with about 70% of the negatives I've scanned in terms of sharpness (please note this word).

I know photography is subjective and sharpness is an experience that will depend on the mood and purpose of the photograph, so it's not a debate of being "better", but for some reason I can't help but be disappointed on a system I paid double for producing these results.

Don't get me wrong, the Hasselblad system I got is amazing -straight up. I'm just really impressed with my Pentax 67. Is it possible that it could be a sharper system? I'm actually considering shooting with just this system and selling my Hasselblad.

nickandre · Mar 8, 2010

It's not the cameras you're comparing, it's lenses. Results will vary by lens and aperture.

Tom Nutter · Mar 9, 2010

I doubt it is sharper, by it may be easier to focus accurately, therefore making it effectively sharper.

keithwms · Mar 9, 2010

I am not sure (with no examples to look at) but the issue you see may be more to do with contrast. Bear in mind that if you don't require creamy bokeh, then there are indeed contrastier lenses than can be found in the Hasselblad and Mamiya families.

My own assessment (which I am well aware can never be complete!) is that the Hassie and [non-RF] Mamiya families very nicely balance contrast with pleasing out-of-focus (OOF) rendering. If/when I am willing to give up the pleasant/portraity OOF rendering, then the Fuji EBC glass and the Mamiya RF glass definitely deliver better contrast. Perhaps that is the case in your comparison too. I am not familiar with the p67 glass, but this may well be the case.

Cases for which the contrastier lenses excel: landscapes and documentary style work, and obviously anything requiring more DOF. But beware what can happen in portraiture and isolated-focus compositions.

The bottom line, as usual, is to use whatever makes you feel more confident and productive.

And... you are just about to ignite a major flame war that will ultimately result in someone demanding MTF charts Do consider how best to spend your time when these discussions turn to brand warfare.

fschifano · Mar 9, 2010

Let's face the facts. Hasselblad uses some of the finest glass made by Zeiss. Pentax has long been known for making very fine, and affordable, lenses. In practice the glass you can get for either system is better than good, and the differences, while sometimes noticeable, really are quite subtle.

All this banter about whose lenses are "better" in cases like this is, I think, really about bluster. Either system can make absolutely stunning images in the right hands.

Philippe-Georges · Mar 9, 2010

I do not want the sharpest lens, why would I? A lens is more than sharpness alone.
I just want a good lens thats making nice pictures with all the recitation (is this good English for présence?) I want to put in the image, its something about the soul
If you really want a razor harp lens, then take an industrial process lens!
And Frank is right.

Philippe

P.S. Yes, Pentax has good glass and Zeiss, Leitz, Shneider, Nikon, Canon, Rodenstock, Pentacon, Jupiter, Olympus, Doctor (Dresden), Kodak Ektar, and all the others too...

scinysnaps · Mar 9, 2010

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez//test/fourcameras.html

Steve Smith · Mar 9, 2010

Is it possible that the focusing screen is more accurately placed in the Pentax than it is in the Hasselblad?

Steve.

verney · Mar 9, 2010

Steve Smith said:
Is it possible that the focusing screen is more accurately placed in the Pentax than it is in the Hasselblad?.

That's what I was thinking. I don't see tester mentioning that focusing accuracy has been tested with any of the cameras.

Focusing screen in Hasselblad is easily changed by user. I have heard about stories that user has installed it upside down and wondered why his pictures are soft

Peter de Groot · Mar 9, 2010

Steve Smith said:
Is it possible that the focusing screen is more accurately placed in the Pentax than it is in the Hasselblad?

Steve.

That Mamiya 7 is a rangefinder? So no focussing screen? That would make the Mamiya a better camera?
>-)

Steve Smith · Mar 9, 2010

Peter de Groot said:
That Mamiya 7 is a rangefinder? So no focussing screen?

But we were comparing a Pentax 67 and a Hasselblad.

Steve.

Peter de Groot · Mar 9, 2010

oops excuse me. I had the article in mind when I read and replied to your and Verney's reply.

df cardwell · Mar 9, 2010

This is weird. Back in the PrePhotoSteamPunk days of the 20th century, when pros shot film, LOTS of top commercial shooters used Pentax 67 and nobody thought twice about the religious aspect of what one shot. Great cameras, great systems, and - thank goodness - DIFFERENT.

The kind of work you did, and where you did it, made the system choice for you. Hassie shooters could own a minimal kit, and rent the backs and all the lenses, on the clients dime, and that was the common urban/photo center way to go. You also had your Hassie repair shop because it was a complex system and the leaf shutters (and ham handed assistants) meant that you usually had something in the shop all the time. Not the Pentax, but it was a different cat altogether. No Polaroid capacity, limited flash capacity, and you couldn't change backs (although the bodies were cheaper than Hassie backs). But which was sharper ? I never knew a Pentax guy who was starving because his pics weren't first rate.

The real pity was that the Rollei 6000 series never broke through the Hassie fog; replacing the leaf shutter with servos was brilliant, and it was a great system, but Hassie had locked the USA market by giving superb service and support that went back to the 60's when it was sold by Paillard - Rollei was always an orphan and the support was never established. Same with Bronica (at least in some regions)- service support was awful. Mamiya made a great effort in the closing years of The Film Era to upgrade their cameras for the hard use they came to receive.

Babbling, I guess. You guys shoulda seen 6x7 Kodachrome. OOOh, baby.

DanielStone · Mar 9, 2010

df,

6x7 kodachromes, I can only imagine !

-Dan

dpurdy · Mar 9, 2010

I think the OP was merely expressing surprise that the Hasselblad didn't knock the socks off the Pentax in high rez scans. Personally I think that must have been partly from user error with the Hasselblad, which is capable of knocking the socks off some really fine competitor optics. The Pentax has really fine optics but shouldn't come out ahead of the Hasselblad in sharpness. Some Pentax lenses have the quality of looking sharp even if they are slightly off, at least mine do, I suppose that is due to contrast. I have done manic testing with my 6 Pentax lenses (some newer some older) vs Rolleiflex lenses by putting the cameras on a heavy tripod in a dark basement and making exposures by turning the lights on and off, which takes the shutter vibration out of the variables. Not one of the Pentax lenses quite holds up to the resolution of the Rollei lenses (both Planar and Xenotar). But it is close. Certainly if you use mirror lock up you will have no complaints in use with the Pentax 67.
Dennis

hidesert · Mar 9, 2010

Pardon my ignorance, I've not used either of these systems, but are we comparing a 6x7 Pentax frame with a 4.5x6 crop of a 6x6 Hasselblad? And folks are still expecting the Hasselblad to be sharper?

borisdeswan · Mar 9, 2010

I can't resist adding my 2 cents worth. I've owned and shot Pentax 6x7 stuff for close to 3 decades, deriving ontold professional and personal satisfaction. A few years ago I gave in to temptation and bought a Hassy and today I have 3 with several lenses to go with my 6 pentax lenses.
So both systems have co-existed in my photographical life in a very happy way.I'm very satisfied and must say that I have shot the same subject ( the trunk of a tree with rough bark ) with tripod mounted Pentax and 165 mm. f 4 lens and an also tripod mounted 501c with a 150 mm sonnar t lens using kodak t400cn film. with this film differences in developing are eliminated. ¿ results? Most definite a tie. If there ever was a difference maker it would be the extra cm. that 6x7 gives you. From my experience, technique, composition and most definitely passion and a clear photographic concept are going to have a much, much more deep impact in your photography than one brand of camera or lens. Sure a Carl Zeiss fish eye is much better than the pentax one, but so is the cost. However pentax lenses like the 45, 55, 75 or the 200mm are stellar. Still the bottom line is the ultimate photograph you end up delivering or posting or hanging on the wall, and when you or someone else sees it, it is appreciated or not, regardless of the equipment used to make it. Cheers. Boris.

jovo · Mar 9, 2010

I think the larger Pentax negative may suggest slightly greater sharpness at the same magnification, but the leaf shutter on the 'Blad vs the curtain on the Pentax might obviate the difference rendering the Pentax negative equal to, or less sharp than the 'Blad. I've used a P67 with 55, 105, and 200 mm lenses for about a dozen or so years, and sharpness has never, ever been an issue except for a NYC rooftop shot that kept the shutter open for 45 seconds, and, when enlarged significantly, showed a tiny double image of every specular highlight detail because of the shutter (I used MLU) I think.

herb · Mar 9, 2010

Pentx vs Hasselblad

I have both. Both do very well. I also have a hassy clone, Hartblei, that does better than my Hasselblad 80mm with its 45mm t/s lens. The sharpness champ of all my lenses, however goes to a 305mm f9 G Claron, a process lens.

The cult of various cameras has been way overblown, sometimes successfully, by the mfgs and their users.

fschifano · Mar 9, 2010

jovo said:
I think the larger Pentax negative may suggest slightly greater sharpness at the same magnification, but the leaf shutter on the 'Blad vs the curtain on the Pentax might obviate the difference rendering the Pentax negative equal to, or less sharp than the 'Blad. I've used a P67 with 55, 105, and 200 mm lenses for about a dozen or so years, and sharpness has never, ever been an issue except for a NYC rooftop shot that kept the shutter open for 45 seconds, and, when enlarged significantly, showed a tiny double image of every specular highlight detail because of the shutter (I used MLU) I think.

With a 45 second exposure, camera movement during the exposure is a definite possibility. Using MLU or not wouldn't make much difference, since these vibrations settle down very quickly. That little bit of vibration doesn't last long enough to make an impression on the film with very long exposure times. On the other hand, it is very likely that something shifted part way through the exposure. A heavy vehicle running on the street below, or the subway rumbling underground, can vibrate a building enough to shift a tripod a tiny amount.

Joachim_I · Mar 9, 2010

hidesert said:
Pardon my ignorance, I've not used either of these systems, but are we comparing a 6x7 Pentax frame with a 4.5x6 crop of a 6x6 Hasselblad? And folks are still expecting the Hasselblad to be sharper?

As far as I understand, Jordan looks at scans not at 16x20 prints or something like that where the Pentax would have a format advantage. The scanned negative of the Pentax is slighly wider, that's all.

Let me contribute only one more thought to this thread: Jordan's experience is another example that the much debated "shutter shake" problem of the Pentax is seriously exaggerated on the internet. I don't know how many photographers decided against the Pentax because of rumours mostly spread by people who never saw any prints or slides produced by this system.

Every Pentax 67 user I met is very happy with this system, myself included. And I don't care if another system produces marginally sharper results. The overall package counts (otherwise I probably would have changed to digital by now; something which is certainly not in my mind). I guess the same applies to Hasselblad users.

MikeSeb · Mar 9, 2010

I think the Hasselblad name has quantum properties that cause photons to bend more accurately; and photographers to, gape-jawed, get out their checkbooks.

GraemeMitchell · Mar 9, 2010

I use both these systems extensively. Both are great, obviously, but they're so so different in the nature of how they're designed, and moreover how they want to be shot, that I've never made it as far to even consider comparing their optics.

W/ that, getting geeky, both have lenses that are so sharp they leave nothing to be desired (hassy 120mm makro, pentax 105mm). At all. They also both have lenses in their line ups that while not incredibly sharp, draw so beautifully, it leaves nothing to be desired (hassy 150mm, Pentax 165mm)

Pumal · Mar 9, 2010

It's the lens and the aperture that matters

2F/2F · Mar 9, 2010

At the same size of a standard rectangular print size, yes, because the Pentax negatives do not need to be magnified as much, nor do they need to be cropped to fit the paper.

At the same magnification from the negative? Probably not, with most lenses. This means that if you print the entire composition from each to the same width on the paper (the 6 cm side of each frame enlarged to fit the paper), then the magnification will be the same. (You get a smaller image with the Hassy, however, because it shoots a square.)

I can't think of many instances in which I would print something other than a very minor variation of what I composed in the camera, though, so I would say that a correctly working Hassy should produce sharper images at the same print size, if it is not cropped and enlarged more than the Pentax negative.

As for whether you can see the "better" sharpness of the Hassy lenses on the print, who knows? However, it can be measured on a technical level.

One advantage of the Pentax, aside from negative size, is the film flatness, and the fact that you do not need to ensure this with every back, as you do with a camera that uses exchangeable magazines. It could just be that your Hassy backs need service to perform at their best. It is also possible that your insert does not match your back.

This being said, the lenses simply form images of different aesthetic qualities. A raw technical measurement of sharpness is not as important as learning to see these differences.

Another thought: Are your Hassy shots perhaps shot stopped down more than the Pentax shots, to the extreme end of the aperture range (smallest apertures)? If so, you may be seeing the effects of diffraction when you blow it up on your computer screen.

I am also assuming you are using the same film...but maybe I shouldn't assume things.

Pentax 67 sharper than Hasselblad?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency