Walking around with a Pentax 6x7 vs. Hasselblad 500c?

[Pieter12]

Cropping works wonders. You can get any aspect ratio you want.

 

[bring_back_pro400h]

Heck, I've often carried two P67 bodies with multiple lenses all day long. Weighed less than my personal belt-line increase over the past twenty years. I still think of it as my mini-system. But it's all relative; and compared to my 8x10 or Sinar Norma gear pack, it is light; but not so much compared to my little 4x5 wooden folder. Cumulative weight start getting up there when using my wonderful P67 300EDIF, which for optimal effect needs just as heavy and solid a tripod as my 8x10. Mirror lock-up is also essential unless shooting at higher shutter speeds allowing the shutter screen to fully do its thing before the mirror kicks. You also need to be aware of your surroundings. Never shoot a P67 standing below a brick chimney or fractured granite wall in the mountains, lest it collapse upon you.

My brother not only shot Rollei 6x6's, but sold them. He'd demonstrate the softness of the shutter by setting the camera on a table and setting a dime upright on edge atop the camera itself. When he tripped the shutter, the dime didn't even tip over. If you tried that with a Pentax, the dime would land atop the roof of a coin laundry six blocks away. But even with my big 300 P67 teles, I've been able to rest them on a folded jacket atop a car roof or fencepost, and hand shoot them at relatively high shutter speed, and come away with perfectly crisp shots. I prefer to do that, however, with a big wooden Ries tripod instead, plus mirror lock-up.

P67 finders? I have em all. The folding waist level one is the most compact. The magnifying chimney hood is the most deluxe in terms of bright viewing and focus accuracy. But both kinds are clumsy in many common scenarios, especially if you want a vertical composition. Since I'm out in storms or quickie opportunities so often, the standard prism finders make more sense generally; and I have accessory magnifiers for these as well, even a right angle prism attachment in case of copy stand use in the studio.

I'm actually curious, how is the chimney finder? Do you find it easier to nail focus compared to the eye level or waist level?

 

[Sirius Glass]

But the Hassle side of it would involve lugging a film stretcher too, plus the hassle of finding Rubbermaid branded film, if you want 6x7 or 6x9 shots from a Hassie 6X6 back. But that penny trick thing, yeah; I can't think of much else a penny is useful for these days.

Drew, you of all people should know that for decades Hasselblad advertized for years that "Square is the perfect format." so why would anyone ever want to use the imperfect 6x7 format?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm actually curious, how is the chimney finder? Do you find it easier to nail focus compared to the eye level or waist level?

The eye level prism finder actually shows a larger apparent image than the waist lever finder [aka waste level finder] at the eye level, which by the way helps people who would normally need reading glasses to see the viewfinder to avoid using the viewfinder.

 

[Alan9940]

Drew, you of all people should know that for decades Hasselblad advertized for years that "Square is the perfect format." so why would anyone ever want to use the imperfect 6x7 format?

It's hip to be square! Sorry...couldn't resist!

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's hip to be square! Sorry...couldn't resist!

So true, so do not resist. Besides 645 is just so wrong.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe a diamond shape is even hipper; "square is everywhere" - heck, that even rhymes.

Six-forty-five is just too small in size. That also almost rhymes - we're halfway to a rap hit. Remember the baggy pants to toss all those extra film backs in; that should pull em down low enough!

But back to a legitimate question ... The Pentax chimney finder shows the entire frame size, and includes an especially bright built-in adjustable-diopter magnifier eyepiece. However, the folding finder just has a flip-down simple meniscus lens magnifier for the central portion of the image only, though with it out of the way, one can see and compose the whole image, just like any other waist-level finder. But one distinct advantage of the folding finder is that it makes the camera a lot more compact than other options, when that becomes a priority. It's also by far the lightest.

Sometimes for airline travel, I'd carry two bodies - one for color film, the other for b&w, with a folding finder on one, and a regular prism finder on the other, since they're fast and easy to switch as needed. At that time, entire P67 MLU bodies cost less than Hassle backs, and served as a functional backup if necessary. No need for a supplementary film stretcher either.

Yeah, yeah ... I know "HasBad's had a reputation" (that almost rhymes too), and one even got taken to the moon. But they could toss it out there without risking a littering citation, so that's probably why they took it along.

 

[abruzzi]

A bad assumption. I and many others have never used the WLF which explains the popularity of the PMs and PMEs.

I said “to me” not to you. And if you read the OP earlier posts, he is clearly considering the WLF.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think if I were exclusively in the eye-level viewfinder camp, I'd keep the Pentax. But from time to time I miss the RB's waist-level finder. I don't miss the bulk, moving the RB around was a literal pain in the ass.

The RB67 comes with an eye-level viewfinder as well as a waist level. The eye level also has a separate magnifier you can slip on to help in focusing.

 

[bring_back_pro400h]

I said “to me” not to you. And if you read the OP earlier posts, he is clearly considering the WLF.

Correct. I compose better and nailed focus every time when I was using the RB67's WLF, whereas the dimmer screen eye-level Pentax 6x7 gives me a little squinting to get things right. I don't use the famed 105mm simply because the shallow depth of field would tempt me, and I'd subsequently screw up focus. I know there's a loupe magnifier attachment but I feel like that's just another expensive part I could break.

I've considered replacing the Pentax's focusing screen with modern, brighter ground glass, and I have taken apart my non-MLU model's ground glass to get at the mirror dampeners (they were crumbly). The 67ii has an easily interchangeable focusing screen which is much brighter, a wealthier man than I would buy that model instead.

The WLF on the Hassys seems quite clear and bright. I think my favorite way by far to focus is the flip-up loupe, that I can push down to then compose once I have focus. This would help me venture into shallower DOF lenses, whereas I've stayed with the 75mm f4.5 and the 150mm f2.8 on the Pentax due to fear of missing focus.

 

[bring_back_pro400h]

Drew, you of all people should know that for decades Hasselblad advertized for years that "Square is the perfect format." so why would anyone ever want to use the imperfect 6x7 format?

6x6 feels hippy because that's the format for album covers. I love it.

6x7 was advertised by Pentax as the "ideal format" because most paper dimensions allowed for more of the negative to be used in the final product. I like 6x7 for the same reason, most of the portraits I've shot barely need cropping when I nail composing. Oh, and shooting 35mm rolls in the Pentax 6x7 makes me feel like I've cheated the system and avoided shelling 3,000 clams on an X-Pan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

6x6 feels hippy because that's the format for album covers. I love it.

6x7 was advertised by Pentax as the "ideal format" because most paper dimensions allowed for more of the negative to be used in the final product. I like 6x7 for the same reason, most of the portraits I've shot barely need cropping when I nail composing. Oh, and shooting 35mm rolls in the Pentax 6x7 makes me feel like I've cheated the system and avoided shelling 3,000 clams on an X-Pan.

What camera do they use to create covers for oblong records.

 

[Arthurwg]

I always use a prism finder on my Hasselblad. I don't think it adds much weight and the bulk is minimal. Nothing like the prisms for the RB67. But that said, you really can't compare 6x6 with 6x7. If you want the real estate and a 4x5 look, a 6x7 can't be beat. Suggest the best camera for that, if you can afford it, would be the Mamiya 7 or 7!!. Very light, easy to hand hold, great lenses.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you want the real estate and look of 4x5, shoot 4x5, period. Even 6x7 cm doesn't come close if significant enlargement is in mind; but 6X7 is a nice compromise format. M7 might be nice a lightwt camera option, especially since your wallet will be far lighter, with a small selection of excellent lenses; but there isn't even a "normal" lens length, and SLR's make far more sense with telephotos than RF's. My RF's are 6x9 Fuji anyway, so even more real estate in the roll film category, and with a superb lens of its own; but one has to work with that single fixed lens. Sometimes I've traveled with the P67 with a 165 moderate tele attached, along with a Fuji GW690ii or iii for sake of a wide-normal perspective plus potential handheld applications. P67 bodies aren't really all that heavy; it's the big prism which boosts their weight factor, as well as the lenses. Take a 4x5 view camera with a set of petite lenses, plus a roll film back and you conserve a lot of weight. You forfeit handheld usage, but gain the tremendous advantage of film plane and perspective movements. It's all good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I always use a prism finder on my Hasselblad. I don't think it adds much weight and the bulk is minimal. Nothing like the prisms for the RB67. But that said, you really can't compare 6x6 with 6x7. If you want the real estate and a 4x5 look, a 6x7 can't be beat. Suggest the best camera for that, if you can afford it, would be the Mamiya 7 or 7!!. Very light, easy to hand hold, great lenses.

If you want the real estate and look of 4x5, shoot 4x5, period. Even 6x7 cm doesn't come close if significant enlargement is in mind; but 6X7 is a nice compromise format. M7 might be nice a lightwt camera option, especially since your wallet will be far lighter, with a small selection of excellent lenses; but there isn't even a "normal" lens length, and SLR's make far more sense with telephotos than RF's. My RF's are 6x9 Fuji anyway, so even more real estate in the roll film category, and with a superb lens of its own; but one has to work with that single fixed lens. Sometimes I've traveled with the P67 with a 165 moderate tele attached, along with a Fuji GW690ii or iii for sake of a wide-normal perspective plus potential handheld applications. P67 bodies aren't really all that heavy; it's the big prism which boosts their weight factor, as well as the lenses. Take a 4x5 view camera with a set of petite lenses, plus a roll film back and you conserve a lot of weight. You forfeit handheld usage, but gain the tremendous advantage of film plane and perspective movements. It's all good.

I agree. I use 35mm, 6x6 and 4"x5". And use a PME prism on the Hasselblad.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm a format schizophrenic. Two weeks ago I was shooting 4x5, last Saturday 8x10, and yesterday a 6X9 RF. Some of this is obviously strategic, depending on the specific subject matter I'm hunting as well as anticipated weather conditions; yet often it's just a matter of what mood I'm in. Of course, in long-haul backpacking, portability takes priority, but even then, there are several realistic options for me, as long as it's no bigger than 4x5. One variable which has come more prominently into play than in former years is sheer film cost. I'm shooting roll film far more often these days than 8x10.

 

[warden]

As a current Pentax 6x7 shooter, sometimes I wonder what the Hasselblad would be like. Thoughts? I'm debating a switch to a Hasselblad V system, mostly out of GAS and not necessity.

well at least you know you have gas! Keep the Pentax. Forget the Hasselblad. You’re good.

 

[bring_back_pro400h]

well at least you know you have gas! Keep the Pentax. Forget the Hasselblad. You’re good.

But... shiny new camera!

All things considered you're right, I've been seeing too many Hassy WLF posts come up recently and got it in my head that I would not rest till I owned one.

For the sake of money, though, I'm probably selling the Pentax anyways. I just stumbled upon a ton of Vision3 250D that I got for quite cheap, and it's all 35mm. Like, an apocalypse hoarder's supply of 35mm. That's why I was sniffing around on here asking about the Nikon F cameras, I may be able to comfortably shoot for many months without buying more film if I revert back to a 35mm system.

 

[eli griggs]

I recommend buying the newest body in the best condition one can afford. I did not buy the CW because I never wanted to add a power winder. Many have been happy with the 500C/M. Look at http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HS/HSTable.aspx to learn about the difference between models. This article tells one how old the body and equipment other than lenses are http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTDating.aspx Also in the left column you can use that for the body manufacture date and below for lens manufacture date.

The Hasselblad 500cm is simply the perfect Hasselblad 500 series camera, out of all the versions and any issue with it can be found in later cameras which have their own unique issues to deal with, when there is a malfunction of one of their "features".

That's my opinion and I think you'll find others that feel likewise.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Hasselblad 500cm is simply the perfect Hasselblad 500 series camera, out of all the versions and any issue with it can be found in later cameras which have their own unique issues to deal with, when there is a malfunction of one of their "features".

That's my opinion and I think you'll find others that feel likewise.

Just be sure that both the body and lenses are cocked before removing or putting in a lens. Not really rocket science.

 

[bring_back_pro400h]

Just be sure that both the body and lenses are cocked before removing or putting in a lens. Not really rocket science.

Ah, so similar to the RB67. I hear the lens can get stuck on the body if you put them together wrong.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ah, so similar to the RB67. I hear the lens can get stuck on the body if you put them together wrong.

Anyone can destroy any camera by not following the directions in the manuals. That is why the manuals are written. One camera store I worked in we were told not to show the customer how to load the film so that they would have to read at least that in the manual.

 

[bring_back_pro400h]

Anyone can destroy any camera by not following the directions in the manuals. That is why the manuals are written. One camera store I worked in we were told not to show the customer how to load the film so that they would have to read at least that in the manual.

I usually read the user manual and dig up the service manual for any older cameras I use, ever since I almost ruined a Ryzen 2400G in a PC build. Always read the manual.

 

[eli griggs]

Ah, so similar to the RB67. I hear the lens can get stuck on the body if you put them together wrong.

I do no know the RB67 but Hasselblad "stuck" lenses on bodies are easy enough to self fix, if you know what it's about and can follow directions in a YouTube video.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Two very different schools of thought, two different form factors and formats. As a current Pentax 6x7 shooter, sometimes I wonder what the Hasselblad would be like. Thoughts? I'm debating a switch to a Hasselblad V system, mostly out of GAS and not necessity.

Reliability seems to be on the same level for both cameras, but personally the Pentax is infinitely more reliable. I got to know exactly how it works when I originally tore it down for repair and tackled a myriad of issues with a watch servicing kit and a soldering iron in my university's workshop. (Shutter speed dial realignment + calibration, mirror magnet, shutter curtain alignment, reinforcing old circuit connections, checking electrical components, CLA of all the light seals, cleaning/lubing the winding pawl). Hasselblad is fully mechanical, but I wouldn't open it up compared to the Pentax simply because it's a more expensive system. I know that CLA technicians exist for both, with Hasselblad still being around.

For those that own both, I'd like to hear your perspective on weight and form factor. Both systems have fantastically sharp/artsy lens ecosystems and are very modular, the Pentax being the eye-level king and the Hasselblad the best for WLF. I love both 6x7 and square format, and sometimes when shooting the Pentax I'll visualize square format and crop in post. They're unique systems and I'd like to hear what you guys have to say for either.

every serious photography fanatic needs, at least basic' Hasselblad V system and will love it.