Pentax 6x7 versus Bronica GS-1?

[Soeren]

You can get a WLF for the Pentax 67 cameras.

True but shooting in portrait orientation is not that easy. To me the P67 is a Prismfinder camera.

 

[138S]

I do find the Mamiya a better camera though partly because I prefer using waist level finders with MF and the finder is generally better. The sore Biceps after a full day out on the streets just adds to the experience

Waist level ??? feet level !!!

At one point the RB67 wins and places photographer's neck on the floor

Anyway it is an extraordinary piece of gear, with sekkor glass making an impressive work, but it commands some refined skills from photographer.

Yes... the experience is strong... a bit the camera is alive, and you agree with it the way you make the job, the camera has its own personality and it's own taste. To be clear, I don't smoke anything , just a feel.

When shooting with a top notch dslr I don't get those results, instead the RB67 (not having even a battery) always finds the way to take an amazing portrait. A friend that shots digital says that making portraits with the RB67 has to be easier because people naturally smile they see such a brick

 

[GLS]

True but shooting in portrait orientation is not that easy

True, but in relation to the thread title you would have the same issue with the GS-1, as it lacks the rotating back of the Mamiya equivalents.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

True, but in relation to the thread title you would have the same issue with the GS-1, as it lacks the rotating back of the Mamiya equivalents.

Then GS-1 has the rotary prism finder, which does make a hell of a difference in handling. P67 and GS-1 are just too different a body shape to go too far with handling comparisons. What may suit one pair of hands, might not another. Without trying both for long enough, it's a toss advice wise.

 

[GLS]

Then GS-1 has the rotary prism finder, which does make a hell of a difference in handling

But Soeren and I were discussing the difficulties of using waist level finders, not prism finders, in portrait orientation.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

But Soeren and I were discussing the difficulties of using waist level finders, not prism finders, in portrait orientation.

Sure, but doesn't rotary finder make a difference in prism outfit when comparing the two? That's the option for GS-1 one P67 does not have (except, that right angle finder might be a point of argument here).

Sure for pure WLF approach I see no difference in challenges for portrait mode, except perhaps for the completely different body styles, but this could be continued with no end. Neither are meant for portrait shooting with WLF attached.

 

[GLS]

To me it's all moot anyway, as I don't like using WLFs.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The P67 folding finder is nice when you want maximum portability and lightness with an otherwise somewhat heavy camera, since much of its weight is actually in the prism finder, with the huge glass prism. But you have to have your eye right up to it to focus decently. And it's pain in the butt for vertical compositions. It does come with a flip away magnifier top which screens out light from above. The deluxe chimney finder is a much better device, quite bright, and allowing rather critical focus at reduced weight; but it's doesn't fold down, so is less compact, and is equally annoying to use with vertical compositions. I can't imagine either of these options being practical for portraiture. I have them all. The pentaprism is the most intuitive to use.

 

[choiliefan]

My eyes are pretty bad and I love the added magnification of the chimney finder on both Pentax and Bronica cameras but its akin to trying to do verticals on a non-RB Graflex SLR.

 

[itsdoable]

Then GS-1 has the rotary prism finder, which does make a hell of a difference in handling....

But Soeren and I were discussing the difficulties of using waist level finders, not prism finders, in portrait orientation.

The rotary finder is a waist level finder, but your eye must be close to the eye piece, you can't view the whole screen from far away. It's like the folding waist level with the magnifier up, but you can see the whole screen.

The GS-1 was primarily built to be a lighter field friendly competition of the Mamiya RZ. In the studio, you have the rotating waist level with the rotating tripod adapter. With the speed grip and AE prism, it handled like a Pentax 67II. And you can leave all the attachments at home if you need to pack light. In all cases, it was still lighter than either. It just did not have the fast glass to compete with the P67.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yeah, Lachlan, but that 8x10 shot, if properly done, will carry a lot more authority, especially if enlarged to a 30X40 inch print. A 35mm image starts falling apart, apples to apples, anything bigger than 5x7 (approx 4X magnification either way). And please note I'm comparing apples to apples, not apples to applesauce! I absolutely love what my 360 Fujinon A does at near-macro on 8x10 film.

I'd tend to say that a 3-4x enlargement is about the limit for absolutely optimal tonal beauty - I was just pointing out that Pentax clearly had a specific commercial/ product photography market aim in mind when they designed the lens - and that reviewers subsequently have failed to make the obvious connection.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I dunno. The P67 135 macro is cheap enough. But there's just so much more control with 4x5, and when one really wants a big or especially rich enlargement, using 8x10. I've done plenty of both. I try not to beyond 4X when printing, but some films will allow a bit more, especially ACROS or TMX100 in 6x7, and Ektar in color, though I prefer 6x9 if I don't need a telephoto lens. I use 6x9 roll film backs on the 4x5 too, which is very practical for long perspectives. But all depends on the day and what mood I'm in. I'm a format schizophrenic, so enjoy playing with different formats. I find the P67 system to have an especially high fun coefficient, so heartily recommend it. Not every reason needs to be quantifiable.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The rotary finder is a waist level finder, but your eye must be close to the eye piece, you can't view the whole screen from far away. It's like the folding waist level with the magnifier up, but you can see the whole screen.

The GS-1 was primarily built to be a lighter field friendly competition of the Mamiya RZ. In the studio, you have the rotating waist level with the rotating tripod adapter. With the speed grip and AE prism, it handled like a Pentax 67II. And you can leave all the attachments at home if you need to pack light. In all cases, it was still lighter than either. It just did not have the fast glass to compete with the P67.

Equating rotary finder to waist level finder is only true for direction one needs to look at it. But it sends a wrong signal to those who never used one. I'd say it is a mis-characterization of one vs. the other. WLF and Rotary Finder are so vastly different in use, they are not really comparable at all. Weight, brightness, overall camera balance are all from a different planet. WLF is fine for almost every style of shooting, portrait mode aside. But Rotary has it's points and viewing versatility WLF does not. For GS-1 Rotary finder has the advantage of also being an AE metering type.

 

[ruilourosa]

shooting a pentacon six tl makes me think pentax and bronica were not the best designs regarding camera shake... specially pentax...

 

[ruilourosa]

regarding bronica... lenses are amazingly good.. all of them (i do not have experience with the 500mm) the 80mm PG is stellar, the camera is a camera... just get used to it...

regarding pentax... lenses are good enough... camera is klunky ... 6 to 7 in richter scale...

 

[itsdoable]

Equating rotary finder to waist level finder is only true for direction one needs to look at it. But it sends a wrong signal to those who never used one. I'd say it is a mis-characterization of one vs. the other. WLF and Rotary Finder are so vastly different in use, they are not really comparable at all....

It is funny how the English language can say something but mean something else.

The Rotary finder is a finder that allows you to view the screen at waist level, in portrait and landscape mode. So does a Chimney finder (not in both modes though). The "folding waist level finder" was most common in the early days, and was shortened to "the WLF". If you look in the early Hasselblad literature, they refer to the "folding waist level finder", "chimney waist level finder", "45deg prism finder", and the "eye level prism finder". Maybe we should call the Bronica rotary the "rotary prism waist level finder".

Witold is right though, they are quite different. But it is a waist level finder.

 

[abruzzi]

I don't know if that is really an English language thing. It is just using words as "descriptive" versus using words as "signifiers". "Point and Shoot" is the most common example I see here, as a "signifier" it means a class of cameras that are small and fully automated (Olympus Stylus, Yashica T4, Pentax IQ Zoom, etc.), as "descriptive" it could be taken to mean large pro cameras with automated features like a Nikon F5 or Pentax 645N. When most people use the phrase "waist level finder" or "WLF" they are using a signifier that means a prismless finder that lets you view the focusing screen directly, and only provides shades to block ambient light and maybe a pop up magnifier. I believe this type of usage is common in other languages as well.

As I side note, I tried a Bronica Rotary Prism Finder on a GS-1 this weekend and found it really hard to use. I had so internalized the reversal when viewing in a waist-level configuration, that it became very difficult to frame without the reversal. I didn't have this problem when using my ETRSi with an eye-level prism, so its definitely a waist level thing. I'm curious whether I can internalize both configurations and switch between them...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentax 6X7 camera shake ???? Nobody notices. We have earthquakes around here frequently. A neighbor's brick chimney fell off when I tripped the shutter but forgot to use mirror lock-up? No big deal. They should have used better mortar.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Well, to update this thread, the Pentax 6x7 arrived from Japan today. The camera appears to be fully functional (once I remembered to put a battery in!). The much-acclaimed 105mm lens looks in very good condition, the 75mm in near-mint condition, but the 200mm and 300mm look a little worse for wear. But I'll get the whole lot CLA'd, though maybe not all at once due to cash flow. First up will be the camera body and the 105 - once they are cleaned and lubed, I'll be good to go. As for weight, with the 300mm - yikes! I'll need a tripod for that, but the 75 and 105 are very transportable.

I threw out the three leather lens boxes which were completely rotten inside - disgusting, actually. I can live without them.

 

[voceumana]

I bought just recently a 300mm ED/IF lens from Japan, and it's quite beautiful. But it is interesting that the new "case" for this lens is a cushioned cloth with padding affair--quite different from the old hard leather cases. I don't like leather cases, because they can promote a humid environment which can promote fungus growth. For much of my equipment I use cushioned wraps with corner Velcro closures, and find them to be quite good.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Yes, that sounds like a healthier alernative. I'll look out for one for each of my lenses. Cheers.