Cropping works wonders. You can get any aspect ratio you want.
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.
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.
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?
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!
A bad assumption. I and many others have never used the WLF which explains the popularity of the PMs and PMEs.
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.
I said “to me” not to you. And if you read the OP earlier posts, he is clearly considering the WLF.
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.
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.
well at least you know you have gas! Keep the Pentax. Forget the Hasselblad. You’re good.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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, so similar to the RB67. I hear the lens can get stuck on the body if you put them together wrong.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?