Pentax 67 sharper than Hasselblad?

You need to magnify a 6x6 neg only 1.3x (just under that, in fact) to get the same size as a 6x7 neg.
That is not a lot, and though it certainly helps, the difference in image quality has to be rather obvious for a magnification so small to reveal it.

Q.G. said:

You need to magnify a 6x6 neg only 1.3x (just under that, in fact) to get the same size as a 6x7 neg.
That is not a lot, and though it certainly helps, the difference in image quality has to be rather obvious for a magnification so small to reveal it.

Click to expand...

Indeed. As I said, it can be measured.....but can it be measured with your eyeballs?

I would argue, based on my experiences, that you will notice a difference in the general aesthetic qualities ("feel") of the images before you will be able to see a difference in sharpness between the two.

Magazine film plane flatness is totally an issue, as if you shot after letting the film sit in a bend.

how will you know if your film isn't flat in the hasselblad?

OP,

It sounds like the Hasselblad focusing screen is off, or the body is not square and aligned, or the backs are not square and aligned, or all three.

After that, test it with the same scene and same lens and shutter settings.

You are scanning so all bets are off anyway.

Steve

There MUST be something wrong with the Hassy

GraemeMitchell said:

I use both these systems extensively.
...
both have lenses that ... leave nothing to be desired

Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up for me. Life is short!

Ian

Joachim_I said:

There MUST be something wrong with the Hassy

Click to expand...

Most of the time, when the Hasselblad’s (500C/M) focusing is off, it is due to the mirror. The mirror is always under the tension of a spring ready to ‘flap’ it up. The mirror is held back (down) by a hook, the mirror is not resting, it is retained. So when that hook is out of angle, the mirror is not held under 45° and all goes wrong.
One needs a micro-metric table to adjust this, it’s a delicate job to do. And this can only been done a few times because the metal of that hook is getting brittle by plying it.

This is why it is better to stock, over very long period, a 500 body released.
When (used-) body’s are sitting unemployed in the shop’s window for over half a year, one can imagine what might happen to the mechanism…

Philippe

leicam5 said:

This is why it is better to stock, over very long period, a 500 body released.
When (used-) body’s are sitting unemployed in the shop’s window for over half a year, one can imagine what might happen to the mechanism…

Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but the answer to that is not much, if anything at all.
The spring pulling the mirror against the stop is not strong enough to do any harm to that bit of metal. It does not even come close to being strong enough.

So though you of course can, there is no reason to store the thing released.


I disagree with your analysis of why focus problems may occur also.
That retainer may get out of whack, true. But it's not very likely.

The biggest worry (but not a big one) is not mirror position (but if, it more probably is one or more of the foam pads below the mirror needing replacement - not that that happens often either), not focussing screen position (though having one sit upside down is not good), but the body length.
Body length is adjusted by tapping the thing with a hammer. In years of not so carefull use, it may get 'tapped' a bit out of shape too.

Q.G. said:

I hate to say this, but the answer to that is not much, if anything at all.
The spring pulling the mirror against the stop is not strong enough to do any harm to that bit of metal. It does not even come close to being strong enough.

So though you of course can, there is no reason to store the thing released.


I disagree with your analysis of why focus problems may occur also.
That retainer may get out of whack, true. But it's not very likely.

The biggest worry (but not a big one) is not mirror position (but if, it more probably is one or more of the foam pads below the mirror needing replacement - not that that happens often either), not focussing screen position (though having one sit upside down is not good), but the body length.
Body length is adjusted by tapping the thing with a hammer. In years of not so carefull use, it may get 'tapped' a bit out of shape too.

Click to expand...

Q.G. you are right, I must have mistaken with the little hook shaped thing on the other side of the camera mouth (behind the lens mount), to witch the mirror is pushed against, sorry.
Anyway, one thing I know for sure is that my 500C/M, after more than 20 years of intense use, struggled with that problem and the mirror inclination had to be adjusted (that’s what I paid for anyway), that’s how I know about the hook thing.
Storing the 500C/M for a long time, released, is what I was always told to do. I admit not to do not do this because I still use the camera rather frequently. BTW, I hate to see camera’s unemployed, that’s why I do not collect them!
But enlighten me a bit on the „…foam pads below the mirror…”. I just checked it, and could not see them, perhaps they are somewhere deeper in the body.

Thanks,

Philippe

The foam pads below the mirror are below the mirror...
You can't see them, unless you take the mirror out of the pan it lies in.



Later cameras had a metal spring instead of foam pads.
Not that these pads cause much problems.

...just to clarify a bunch of things:

1. I doubt strongly that there's anything wrong with the Hassy. I've had it CLA'd along with the backs, fully adjusted and lubed. I've shot plenty of jaw-dropping shots (in my opinion) with it, so it's not giving soft images or out-of-focus images.

2. I doubt contrast is an issue as I've adjusted both the Hassy and the Pentax negs to have the same contrast as an end result.

3. I have looked at prints as well from both at 16x20 with no significant difference either (although it is hard to compare when the photo subjects, lighting, etc. are all different).

4. I understand that the glass is different and that's what produces the sharp images (along with the film, aperature, shutter speed, etc.) only until you take into consideration the vibration of the shutter in question and the focusing on the different systems (which I actually find my Hassy to focus easier by the way).

The main reason I started this thread, I suppose (aside from opening up a can of worms), was to dwell on the experience of other shooters who have used similar systems and found that the margin of difference to be minimal. But I guess that's old news for most here and a topic that has been explored extensively and perhaps even exhausted. I'm still young and haven't had nearly the shooting experience of most on this forum, so I'm drawing out experience of the more veteran shooters. I've shot with 5 medium format systems including Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad and Pentax and it seems to me that the techniques acquired through learning how to use each system is about as important as the MFGTH charts or whatever the science behind it each system. In fact, I still go back to my Bronica 16x16 photos and compare them to my Hasselblad 16x16 photos and am still blown away that both are so close in comparison (I have 2 Bronica prints that are better than anything my Hassy has produced and sit in the "best of the best" portfolio).

I've chosen Hasselblad because of it's ease to use and the style of photographs it forces me to produce (sqaure image, angle from the WLF, etc.), the services available to it, it's durability and consistantly amazing prints and negatives (for some reason the Bronica was a hit or miss with me). The Pentax with it's 6x7 format and eye-level style is great for quicker, more documentary style photos and helps me capture moments the Hassy would be too slow in accomplishing. So, together they are an amazing pair.

Aside from all the valid points put forward by everyone here in terms of factoring sharpness, there is a kind of consistency here that I think is being ignored. I scanned close to 300 negatives and about 100 from the Hassey and 100 from the Pentax. And as much as it may be a valid point that because it's all scanning "all bets are off anyways", I have made prints with both systems as well and have a similar experience (not scientifically sound experiments though). You can throw all the charts and lines per whatever at me, but I think the experience speaks for itself and is the best measurement available 'cause I don't think the science factors in the "placebo effect" that sometimes comes with having certain brands and hype. I'm not trying to "prove" anything here -just my own thoughts and experience.

it 's not relevant
hasselblad designed their lenses 50 years ago, for portrait purposes
do not expect tack sharp images
when you compare with an RZ for instance, now that's sharp
but the design of the mamiya lenses has another approach
mamiya is way to sharp for portraits !!!

patrickfransdesmet said:

it 's not relevant
hasselblad designed their lenses 50 years ago, for portrait purposes

Click to expand...

No, they didn't. Don't know where you got that idea, but it's absolutley not so.
The thing you infer from that notion too is not right.

jordanstarr said:

I've chosen Hasselblad because of it's ease to use and the style of photographs it forces me to produce (sqaure image, angle from the WLF, etc.), the services available to it, it's durability and consistantly amazing prints and negatives (for some reason the Bronica was a hit or miss with me). The Pentax with it's 6x7 format and eye-level style is great for quicker, more documentary style photos and helps me capture moments the Hassy would be too slow in accomplishing. So, together they are an amazing pair.

Click to expand...

I'm new here and fairly new to medium format, having just acquired a 6x7, so I've been following this thread with interest. I think this paragraph will be a big help in rationalizing a Hassy at some point.

patrickfransdesmet said:

it 's not relevant
hasselblad designed their lenses 50 years ago, for portrait purposes
do not expect tack sharp images
when you compare with an RZ for instance, now that's sharp
but the design of the mamiya lenses has another approach
mamiya is way to sharp for portraits !!!

Click to expand...

There is no basis for what you said. The lenses were designed for more than just portraits. The lenses were sharp where they were designed and they are still sharp. If Zeiss thought that the lenses needed an improve prescription, they would have changed the design.

Please send me the stuff you are smoking!

Steve

Yeah, the term Softar come to mind.

I don't use either system. All of my medium format SLRs are Bronicas. The advantage of medium format equipment is that you don't need to enlarge as much. In general, the larger the format the larger the camera bodies and lenses are. If I need the extra speed and shoot with Tri-X in a GS-1 and then take the same shots on the same film with an ETRS I will see the finer grain in an 8X10 or 11X14 from the GS-1. Both systems have good lenses but the larger negative will not have to be enlarged as much. If I'm shooting with a very fine grain film like Portra 160VC then I won't see as much of a difference between the 6X4.5 and 6X7 formats at least up to 11X14. The 6X6 format will look the same as the 6X7 format if you are making minimally cropped square prints. Someone in a different forum once claimed that you needed to go to at least 6X9 to get significant improvement over 35mm. I don't think he understood that for standard print sizes with little cropping, the 6X9 format does not offer any improvement over the 6X7 format. If Hasselblad and Pentax 6X7 equipment are both used properly then sharpness in the final rectangular print should be similar but the prints from the 6X7 negatives/slides should have finer grain. If you need to routinely make 4' X 6' prints then you shouldn't be using either system.

cfclark said:

I'm new here and fairly new to medium format, having just acquired a 6x7, so I've been following this thread with interest. I think this paragraph will be a big help in rationalizing a Hassy at some point.

Click to expand...

I also new but I have a WLF for Pentax and hence, not sure that you need Hassey just for its WLF. In fact, for Pentax, it is 100% view and good for low angle if you use horizontal.

Other than sharpness, I found that the color comes from the lens (Zeiss 50mmF3.5 and Pentax smc 67 55mmF4) is very different even if both use Velvia 50. I found Zeiss is much saturated whilst Pentax lens is less. (I also found Yashica 124G more saturated than Rolleiflex T as well). Some photography friends said that I am wrong and only film give you color. But my eye told me that the lens render differently. One more thing to think about.

Of course, Pentax is larger 35mm like and easier to use.

dng88 said:

I also new but I have a WLF for Pentax and hence, not sure that you need Hassey just for its WLF. In fact, for Pentax, it is 100% view and good for low angle if you use horizontal.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know. I'm just trying to come up with a reason to acquire another camera. (Although actually I should probably go looking for a WLF for the 6x7.)

I just got a 55mm f4 for mine and I'm looking forward to getting out and using it.