Pentax 67II vs. Bronica GS-1 - I can't keep both. Which one should I sell?

TheFlyingCamera said:

Third option: sell them both and get a Mamiya RZ67. It solves the problems of both systems: absolutely tack-sharp lenses, and enough mass and mirror dampening to be able to shoot hand-held at quite slow speeds. This was shot hand-held, pointed straight up, at 1/15th. The lens was the 50mm. Oh, and all lenses are leaf-shutter lenses so no second-curtain bounce to induce vibration.

Click to expand...

Ugh. When I was deciding on which 6x7 system, I found the Mamiyas too big and bulky. Just not for my shooting style of mostly landscapes. The GS-1 was and easy decision for me.

Tony-S said:

Ugh. When I was deciding on which 6x7 system, I found the Mamiyas too big and bulky. Just not for my shooting style of mostly landscapes. The GS-1 was and easy decision for me.

Click to expand...

At least with the RZ you don't have to turn the whole camera to switch from vertical to horizontal. I know it is not the camera for everyone- no camera is. For travel stuff, I still greatly prefer my Rolleiflex 2.8E over the RZ - I can haul around a pair of Rolleis (a standard and a tele) with less weight and bulk than an RZ with 110 and 180 lenses. But, if you want the very best there is for 6x7, the RZ is perhaps THE choice.

TheFlyingCamera said:

Third option: sell them both and get a Mamiya RZ67. It solves the problems of both systems: absolutely tack-sharp lenses, and enough mass and mirror dampening to be able to shoot hand-held at quite slow speeds. This was shot hand-held, pointed straight up, at 1/15th. The lens was the 50mm. Oh, and all lenses are leaf-shutter lenses so no second-curtain bounce to induce vibration.

Click to expand...

Beautiful shot! Looks like an amazing ceiling! And you shot it at 1/15th?!

Believe it or not, I was also considering selling my GS-1 set, Pentax 67II set, and one of my two Linhof Technikardan 45s and just getting a Mamiya 7.

Do you guys think it's a crazy strategy to sell both my medium format SLRs just because of an internal meter that underexposes (GS-1) or a camera that viciously shutter shakes at slower shutter speeds even with mirror lockup (P67II) for the sake of getting a Mamiya 7?

By the way, I can't help but wonder if the shutter shake on the P67II only happens after the photo has been taken. Can anyone chime in on this?

manfrominternet said:

Do you guys think it's a crazy strategy to sell both my medium format SLRs just because of an internal meter that underexposes (GS-1) or a camera that viciously shutter shakes at slower shutter speeds even with mirror lockup (P67II) for the sake of getting a Mamiya 7?

Click to expand...

What makes you say the GS-1 underexposes? Have you directly compared the GS-1 suggested exposure vs. another camera (with known accurate exposure metering), with both pointed at a uniformly illumination featureless surface, so that regardless of metering area differences or biasing of metering zones, both readings should ordinarily match?
Separate issue from metering is whether the shutter speeds are being accurately controlled...that could be shutter in lens, or it could be electronic speed control in the body.

manfrominternet said:

Beautiful shot! Looks like an amazing ceiling! And you shot it at 1/15th?!

Believe it or not, I was also considering selling my GS-1 set, Pentax 67II set, and one of my two Linhof Technikardan 45s and just getting a Mamiya 7.

Do you guys think it's a crazy strategy to sell both my medium format SLRs just because of an internal meter that underexposes (GS-1) or a camera that viciously shutter shakes at slower shutter speeds even with mirror lockup (P67II) for the sake of getting a Mamiya 7?

By the way, I can't help but wonder if the shutter shake on the P67II only happens after the photo has been taken. Can anyone chime in on this?

Click to expand...

Any vibration that happens post- closing of the shutter cannot possibly impact the image.

If each of the cameras you have cause you (different) issues that impact your experience of using the camera negatively, then it's not unreasonable to get rid of them for something else. I would make sure though that the next camera you get A: addresses the issues you're having, and B: does not have quirks of its own that you cannot live with, or are otherwise a greater compromise than the ones you already have. The Mamiya 7 is a very different style of camera than either of your SLRs. Are you comfortable with shooting a rangefinder? Are you used to the issues with framing and composition? (given you're doing a lot of nighttime/landscape images where you're focusing at infinity/some significant distance, it's probably not a problem, whereas shooting portraits/macro would).

wiltw said:

What makes you say the GS-1 underexposes? Have you directly compared the GS-1 suggested exposure vs. another camera (with known accurate exposure metering), with both pointed at a uniformly illumination featureless surface, so that regardless of metering area differences or biasing of metering zones, both readings should ordinarily match?
Separate issue from metering is whether the shutter speeds are being accurately controlled...that could be shutter in lens, or it could be electronic speed control in the body.

Click to expand...

Have the light meters been calibrated? If the light meter has not been calibrated with by a qualified technician with calibrated sources, then the camera cannot be blamed for have underdeveloped exposures.

manfrominternet said:

By the way, I can't help but wonder if the shutter shake on the P67II only happens after the photo has been taken. Can anyone chime in on this?

Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. I have had my p67-ii since 2001 and never had a single blurred shot because of mirror shake. I almost never use a tripod, always handheld. I use my 165mm lens all the time handheld. I don't shoot below 1/60th of a second though. I don't like to shoot in the dark.

manfrominternet said:

By the way, I can't help but wonder if the shutter shake on the P67II only happens after the photo has been taken. Can anyone chime in on this?

Click to expand...

It is very easy to check using mirror lock-up and multiexposure features. There is nothing abrupt in the shutter action, it is the mirror return which makes most of the vibration. I have taken good portrait photos hand-held with the 105 mm and a shutter speed down to 1/30.

The problem about shooting on a tripod with a Pentax 67II is that we usually put a heavy camera like this on a much lighter tripod making the whole set unstable. You need to hang some extra weight somewhere on the tripod to lower the center of gravity (a bag on the tripod head hook, for example, but the weight must be as close to the floor as possible) and spread the legs generously to difficult oscilations.

The main concern about a Pentax 67II is that it is a very expensive camera impossible to repair nowadays. Unless a very good deal cross in your way, I would consider a Pentax 67 instead, purely mechanical and possible to service.

I'll summarize back to the OP post:

Bronica GS1 exposes film correctly. If you light meter is miss-reading, that is an issue with your meter, not the system.

P67 - as with any Focal Plan shutter, they have more shutter shake than a leaf shutter, but the main shutter shock is the 1st curtain when it fully opens and stops - a lot of design goes into that shutter brake. The second curtain does not effect the shutter shake, as the exposure has ended when it stops. (Ofcourse with any 50+ piece of equipment, there can be any number of issues that make it not function properly, resulting in vibration during exposure).

RZ67 - great camera. Big. But lighter than the RB67.

We make mountains out of molehills, but why not, this is an equipment forum. But these cameras are all designed and made well, and take excellent pictures as evidence of the existing record. Buy the one that excites you most so you go out and use it. And enjoy it. My problem is I like them all...

It is possible to spend a lot of time, energy, and even money exploring different systems, worrying about shutter shake and so on, but (repeating myself) I suspect the OP's Benro geared head is not big/solid enough for an MF SLR used with a telephoto lens. See it here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1410665-REG/benro_gd3wh_3_way_geared_head.html I'm not saying it's a bad piece of equipment, but it's got parts cantilevered over relatively small support arms. If you do things that push the limits, then you need to rate gear very conservatively. The head is "rated" for 6 kg but it's a commonplace that tripod and head weight limits are too high for exacting work. That is, when they tell you it's rated for 6 kg, that hopefully means it will hold a perfectly centered 6 kg without slipping and falling down, but not that it will hold 6 kg without vibrating.

reddesert said:

It is possible to spend a lot of time, energy, and even money exploring different systems, worrying about shutter shake and so on, but (repeating myself) I suspect the OP's Benro geared head is not big/solid enough for an MF SLR used with a telephoto lens. See it here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1410665-REG/benro_gd3wh_3_way_geared_head.html I'm not saying it's a bad piece of equipment, but it's got parts cantilevered over relatively small support arms. If you do things that push the limits, then you need to rate gear very conservatively. The head is "rated" for 6 kg but it's a commonplace that tripod and head weight limits are too high for exacting work. That is, when they tell you it's rated for 6 kg, that hopefully means it will hold a perfectly centered 6 kg without slipping and falling down, but not that it will hold 6 kg without vibrating.

Click to expand...

That said, would you guys recommend that I switch to a ball head? I've been eyeing one of the ball heads made by FLM, the same company that made my carbon fiber tripod. If I can get some ball head recommendations or other tripod head recommendations for my P67II that'd be most appreciated.

Also, I found an interesting post on photo.net from 1999 regarding the P67II shutter/mirror shake (poster's name is scott_jorgenson1): https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/4639-does-the-problem-of-mirror-vibration-still-exist-in-67ii/

Here is an abridged version I made:

I own both the P67II and the (manual focus) P645. I shoot both on my tripod (the P67II with mirror lockup) and examine them critically under a 10X loupe.

First, note that there's no such thing as a "sharp" or "soft" camera with respect to mirror/shutter-induced vibration. It's just not that black-and-white. Rather, any camera's mirror and shutter cause a certain level of vibration, and whether it is sufficiently dampened so as not to be visible in the final image at high magnification is all a function of the shutter speed, lens magnification (focal length), and external support (ie, the mass, construction, and damping qualities of the tripod, head, and any other inertia you apply). Some cameras have less inherent vibration than others, so they can tolerate lighter and less-stable tripods and heads across a wider range of shutter speeds and lenses. Other cameras aren't so tolerant. That doesn't mean they can't take a great image; just that it takes more care in choice of tripod, or shutter speed, or lens, etc, to do so.

The P67II is much less tolerant than the P645. Many combinations of tripod, head, lens magnification, and shutter speed which the P645 would accept with aplomb to produce a tack-sharp picture, produce a soft image on the P67II (even though the mirror be locked-up).

Specifically, I've found that somewhere between 135mm and 200mm, shutter speeds between 1/30 (or maybe 1/60) and 1/4 (or maybe 1/2) are unusable on the P67II, when shot from the Bogen (Manfrotto) 3021/3030 (an aluminum tripod/head combo weighing about 8 pounds). This is consistent with the mirror locked-up, the camera oriented horizontally, and the usual care taken with focus, cable release, etc.

Now, does this mean the P67II is a junk camera? No, I have no plans to get rid of it. It just means that I either have to avoid those telephoto lenses, or those shutter speeds, or that particular tripod/head. Since the first 2 are not really options for me, I've taken the approach of upgrading to a tripod/head combination that is both heavier and more stable: the Gitzo carbon-fiber G1548 tripod with the G1572 head, about an 11-pound combination. The extra mass, and the better-dampened carbon-fiber construction, have done the trick for me, and I now regularly get tack-sharp pictures at all shutter speeds with even my longest P67II lens (200mm).

Taking landscape photos at midnight cause no problems producing a tack-sharp image. But such long shutter speeds are also outside of the "troublesome middle". The proportion of the total exposure during which the camera is vibrating because of the shutter shock, is negligible.

Considering that I'm leaning towards the theory of the P67II image already being taken before the rough shutter/mirror shake, let me know what you guys this about this.

I would check this first before changing anyhting:

manfrominternet said:

That said, would you guys recommend that I switch to a ball head? I've been eyeing one of the ball heads made by FLM, the same company that made my carbon fiber tripod. If I can get some ball head recommendations or other tripod head recommendations for my P67II that'd be most appreciated.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't advocate for a ball head, although it is clear that you and I have different equipment tendencies. I would, for example, try a combination like Manfrotto/Bogen 3021 legs and 3047 pan head, because I already have one (that cost something like $40 used - moderately heavy used tripods sell at deep discounts). The 3047 is a large 3-way pan head with a large hex QR plate. Ball heads, IMO, have to be super expensive and large to hold large loads. They are good if you need to swing the camera around quickly to take pictures of birds or sports players. But less commonly used for say 4x5 monorails.

The post you quoted from photo.net talks about using a Bogen 3030 head, which is a 3-way pan head that is moderately lighter than the 3047, but it has a dinky little rectangular quick release plate. I mean, it's a fine head for medium duty, and I would put an MF TLR on it without hesitating, but expecting that little QR plate with a rubber pad to hold a Pentax 6x7 and tele lens without vibrating is not realistic.

The page halfaman linked about tripod technique is good, a thing to draw from it is the head to camera connection. There are people who just bolt view cameras to tripods without a head at all.

Slightly off topic, but pertaining to the efficacy of the GS-1: when using the AE finder on a bright day, in sunshine, can you read the LED display?

tom williams said:

Slightly off topic, but pertaining to the efficacy of the GS-1: when using the AE finder on a bright day, in sunshine, can you read the LED display?

Click to expand...

I can read the LED display without issue as it's in the black bar above the viewing screen/area. It's an unusual place to put the LED display and I'm still not 100% used to it.

Thanks manfrominternet - it's good to know. I don't see any reason to think that the prism finder dims the display in my camera + finder, especially since the red dot to the right of the numerals comes through brightly in the black bar. So perhaps the LED numeral display in the camera body could be replaced. Possibly that PCB is connected to the underexposure issue I mentioned earlier. However, Jimmy Koh of Koh's camera made the statement (yesterday, via email) that most of the time, metering faults lie in the AE finder. Tomorrow I'll develop the film I shot yesterday with the stock screen and the Oleson screen, which should clarify my underexposure issue.

Million dollar question: Does anyone know where I can get my Bronica GS-1 serviced and have the camera's meter's tendency to underexpose everything corrected?

I've taken cameras apart before and have a pretty good grasp of their mechanics. I wonder if the underexposure issue is something I can fix by resetting the ISO dial on the GS-1's film back so that when we read 400 ISO, the camera is really reading 200 ISO.

That said, I've been wondering whether the GS-1's underexposure issue has more to do with the film back - which has the both the ISO dial and the exposure compensation dial - rather than the AE finder.

manfrominternet said:

hat said, I've been wondering whether the GS-1's underexposure issue has more to do with the film back - which has the both the ISO dial and the exposure compensation dial - rather than the AE finder.

Click to expand...

Or even more likely, the connection between the back and the camera.
The meter depends on the information about the film speed set on the back.
Do you have more than one back?

Reply to the OP. I have been following this conversation casually, but some things have jumped out to me.

1- If you like the GS-1, and were fortunate enough to find a NOS a few years back, that seems like something to keep

2- Instead of asking for people’s opinions on the internet about shutter bounce, etc., test it yourself. Find a static subject of the type you like to shoot, do one in your normal way, do another with best practices meaning cable release, mirror lock up, waiting a few seconds after mirror lock up before exposure. Then compare the results.

3- You mentioned you like evenings/nighttime. That has to be one of the hardest to meter! This will take some sorting out on your part to see if the Bronica is not metering accurately, or if it is the subject matter. If you have a handheld meter you could check that. Although I don’t usually like this next idea, I think in your case I do like it-using a digital camera to read the same scene and compare the exposure reading. Although I tend use incident metering, nighttime is going to be a reflected situation, and even then it is up to each photographer to decide how light or dark they want the image. How do those two compare? Is the Bronica doing fine or is there a consistent difference with the digital camera settings?
4-If the readings are off, but consistent, just change the EC by that amount, and move on.

tom williams said:

Thanks manfrominternet - it's good to know. I don't see any reason to think that the prism finder dims the display in my camera + finder, especially since the red dot to the right of the numerals comes through brightly in the black bar. So perhaps the LED numeral display in the camera body could be replaced. Possibly that PCB is connected to the underexposure issue I mentioned earlier. However, Jimmy Koh of Koh's camera made the statement (yesterday, via email) that most of the time, metering faults lie in the AE finder. Tomorrow I'll develop the film I shot yesterday with the stock screen and the Oleson screen, which should clarify my underexposure issue.

Click to expand...

Let me know how it goes with the Oleson screen! I was actually thinking of getting a Maxwell split image screen for my P67II, but while chatting with Bill (a very long chat indeed, haha), he checked out the genuine P67II split image screen on eBay and saw that they're going for astronomical prices - around $700 for a split image screen! Anyway, he said that his would cost me around $500, to which I had to politely decline. :/

I checked out Rick Oleson's screens and it's nice to know that there are other focusing screens out there for sure.

I bought a Oleson Screen for my GS-1, but I ended up reverting to my stock screen even though the stock screen doesn't have any focus aids. Obviously lots of other people feel differently, but I found the Oleson screen hard to focus--it was brighter but grainy. I don't know if it was the grind or the fresnel, but it was just difficult for my eyes. At the price though, its probably worth trying out since you won't be out too much if you don't like it.

I gave it a second shot and bought one for my SQ-A, and still didn't like it. (both were microprism only screens because that is my preference.)

I also exclusively use the waist level finder, so I don't know if that makes any difference.

If you suspect your GS-1 prism meter of not being accurate, also buying a Maxwell screen will certain ADD to your uncertainty of 'incaccurate'...the Maxwell screens increase light transmission to the eyepiece, and depending upon where it prism puts its meter sensor(s) that will change the amount of light seen by the meter, too!
I know WITH CERTAINTY that adding a Beattie Intenscreen to an ETRSi AE Prism III results in inaccuracy that CANNOT be adjusted out via the adjustement swtich on the bottom of the meter....one must instead lie about the ISO of the film loaded...which a working pro shooting in hectic moments can get wrong during the heat of battle when switching between multiple emulsions. (My experiment was done to help out Beattie evaluate his screens against the most recent of the ETRS metering prism.)

Some of us have questioned if you compared the GS-1 meter to another known meter, both aimed at a uniformly illuminated featureless (blank) surface, and you have not addressed any of our inquiries about meter comparison.

You're problem is really very simple. You're using a silly toy tripod head. It would be dishonest to phrase that more politely. It has nothing to do with the P67 shutter itself. Yes, employing the mirror-lockup is often helpful (always if under 1/60th in my case). But you need more actual mass under the camera. And avoid ball heads like the plague. Get a decent pan-tilt head like the larger low-profile Gitzo instead.

Faster than around 1/60th, the mirror doesn't slap until the shutter has already done it's thing, so there is no mirror impact to the shot itself. My older brother actually sold Rollei gear and had a couple of SL66's himself, with their extremely gentle mirrors. He demonstrate them by setting a dime on edge atop the camera, itself atop a table, and then trip the shutter. The dime wouldn't even fall. With a P67, it would land half a mile away, and a seismograph in the next county over would probably record 3.5 on the Richter scale. But he preferred borrowing my p67 for its superior ergonomics, and even got sharper shots with it routinely.

Heck, I even often shoot the big heavy 300EDIF tele lens on my P67, bolted DIRECTLY to the top of my smaller Ries wooden tripod via the rotating lens collar (no intermediate tripod head, and none needed), and routinely get extraordinarily crisp shots. Anyone who doesn't, simply has the wrong technique or wrong support system. And if that offends someone, so be it. It's the truth. Every time I hear a gripe about poor performance with the 300's, it turns out they're using some toy tripod setup and don't even have clue how to properly support things, free of vibration. (The older Takumar 300's aren't as well corrected, and are harder to support steady, due to lack of a lens collar mount.)

For teles shorter than that, or other P67 lenses, I can even use my lighter CF tripod with complete confidence. But I prefer the height and stability of the Ries whenever possible, or else my bigger CF one, just like I use for 8x10 format.

All the later P67 lenses are top notch in terms of sharpness - some of the early Takumars too, like the 105 /2.4. Don't blame the lenses if something is not sharp. Their later teles of the EDIF class are probably the best MF teles ever. Astrophotographers prized them. P67's were also prized by aerial photographers. And unlike the RB system, you have several fast lenses to choose from. There's nothing second rate about the P67 system whatsoever. My first P67 body bought 45 yrs ago still functions perfectly; and it's seen some hard use.

Yeah, I prefer my Fuji "Texas Leica" 6X9 RF's for handheld shooting, or compactness; but those are fixed lens cameras, and not a full system like Pentax has. And the ubiquity and abundance of lenses and spare bodies and prisms out there is one big advantage over the Bronica system, which is rather uncommon. M7's are nice, but there's no "normal" focal length lens, and only a token tele presence; and they're getting damn expensive even on the used market.

I have nothing against RB's. But its getting harder to find elephants and mahouts to help carry them. Heck, my 8x10 kit is probably lighter.

Metering issues? I always use a handheld Pentax spot meter anyway, for all my cameras. I haven't actually used the TTL meter prism for my P67 in decades, though it still seems to work fine.

MattKing said:

Or even more likely, the connection between the back and the camera.
The meter depends on the information about the film speed set on the back.
Do you have more than one back?

Click to expand...

Following this lead, I checked my two camera backs, and they do differ. I made some observations by setting both backs to the same ISO, fixing the lens aperture at f11, and then metering an indoor scene under constant illumination. I noted the speed indicated in the AE display for each exposure compensation setting, for both backs. The metered shutter speeds for one back were consistently slower than for the other back. The differences ranged from from 1/3 stop to 1 full stop, with the larger differences at higher shutter speeds.

This after cleaning the gold-colored hemispherical contacts at the upper right of the back, and on the lower right of the finder.

I noticed two pin-type connectors at the lower inside surface of the back, with complementary features on the camera body. One near the ISO dial, the other not. Does anyone know what these connectors are for?

manfrominternet said:

Let me know how it goes with the Oleson screen! I was actually thinking of getting a Maxwell split image screen for my P67II, but while chatting with Bill (a very long chat indeed, haha), he checked out the genuine P67II split image screen on eBay and saw that they're going for astronomical prices - around $700 for a split image screen! Anyway, he said that his would cost me around $500, to which I had to politely decline. :/

I checked out Rick Oleson's screens and it's nice to know that there are other focusing screens out there for sure.

Click to expand...

I'm checking on this. I've made a couple of tests, with counterintuitive results, so I think I'll puzzle on it a bit and then come back.