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

[guangong]

Does the term WLF accurately describe how we use a camera. In my own case, I bring the camera at least to upper chest level. Sometime I use a chimney finder, so Camera is at face level. I only use 45 deg finder with my long Killfit, Leitz, and Olympic Sonnars. (If P67 users want a real physical workout, may I suggest mounting an Olympic Sonnar on their camera and carry outfit for a few hours.)
I use my WLF on Rollei the same way (unless when being sneaky), bringing camera up to chest level.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Does the term WLF accurately describe how we use a camera. In my own case, I bring the camera at least to upper chest level. Sometime I use a chimney finder, so Camera is at face level. I only use 45 deg finder with my long Killfit, Leitz, and Olympic Sonnars. (If P67 users want a real physical workout, may I suggest mounting an Olympic Sonnar on their camera and carry outfit for a few hours.)
I use my WLF on Rollei the same way (unless when being sneaky), bringing camera up to chest level.

When using the WLF on my Rollei, 'blad or P67 I'll bring the camera up close to the eye, use the built-in magnifier to focus and then lower to my lower chest area, with tension on the straps, then recompose, "snap".

 

[DREW WILEY]

Wimps. Pentax themselves made all kinds of teles way way bigger and heavier than that Olympic Sonnar. But I guess the puppy farms raising little Hassie Hounds aren't used to that kind of option. Once a square, alway a square, locked in the same square dog pen. Such a lack of thinking outside the box! Don't worry, soon I'll seek crowdfunding to launch my helium-filled bellows patent into production; the bigger the camera, the lighter it will be.

Incidentally, when did "walking around with a camera" mean that you can't walk around carrying a tripod at the same time? That pretty much solves the whole problem. And "waist level finders" don't necessarily have to be used only in that manner, though it might be helpful to share personal tips how to do that best. Personally, I prefer a tripod even in that case. The shot is almost hopeless with a tele otherwise. Or take your Hassie to the moon like the Apollo crew, where the tug of gravity if far less an issue. Next time they'll take a real Pentax 67 instead; it always helps to learn from your mistakes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen!​

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wimps. Pentax themselves made all kinds of teles way way bigger and heavier than that Olympic Sonnar. But I guess the puppy farms raising little Hassie Hounds aren't used to that kind of option. Once a square, alway a square, locked in the same square dog pen. Such a lack of thinking outside the box! Don't worry, soon I'll seek crowdfunding to launch my helium-filled bellows patent into production; the bigger the camera, the lighter it will be.

Incidentally, when did "walking around with a camera" mean that you can't walk around carrying a tripod at the same time? That pretty much solves the whole problem. And "waist level finders" don't necessarily have to be used only in that manner, though it might be helpful to share personal tips how to do that best. Personally, I prefer a tripod even in that case. The shot is almost hopeless with a tele otherwise. Or take your Hassie to the moon like the Apollo crew, where the tug of gravity if far less an issue. Next time they'll take a real Pentax 67 instead; it always helps to learn from your mistakes.

All that nasty talk about square could lead on to thing that you cannot handle square. Are you saying that you are not up to square?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Square is fine at the poles or on the equator. At mid-latitudes, a diagonal diamond shape makes more sense. Of if you're nitpicky, get a revolving back. I mainly work with view cameras anyway, and only in the northern hemisphere. If I took the same camera to the southern hemisphere, I'd need to stand on my head in order to get a normal upside-down image.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Square is fine at the poles or on the equator. At mid-latitudes, a diagonal diamond shape makes more sense. Of if you're nitpicky, get a revolving back.

A rotating back is not necessary or useful for the square format. It is not even useful for a circular format.

 

[Pieter12]

Does the term WLF accurately describe how we use a camera. In my own case, I bring the camera at least to upper chest level. Sometime I use a chimney finder, so Camera is at face level. I only use 45 deg finder with my long Killfit, Leitz, and Olympic Sonnars. (If P67 users want a real physical workout, may I suggest mounting an Olympic Sonnar on their camera and carry outfit for a few hours.)
I use my WLF on Rollei the same way (unless when being sneaky), bringing camera up to chest level.

I guess the definition of waist-level might depend on where your waist might be. Here's Reinhold Heidecke, the inventor of the Rolleiflex:

 

[Sirius Glass]

I guess the definition of waist-level might depend on where your waist might be. Here's Reinhold Heidecke, the inventor of the Rolleiflex:

View attachment 321508

I am seeing a lot of waste here.

 

[Pieter12]

I am seeing a lot of waste here.

Victor Hasselblad had less of a waist, but he didn't hold the camera up to his eye.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Victor Hasselblad had less of a waist, but he didn't hold the camera up to his eye.

View attachment 321510

Both would have done better with a 45° or 90° prism.

 

[DREW WILEY]

C'Mon. Who goes around in a white shirt trying to stare over their own belly. Might as well use a TLR like the other guy. But I don't know why he's wearing a white shirt either. Just more glare on the screen either way. No wonder it's such a Bad-Hassle. And as far as level without a rotating back, well, what do you do on the equator where you need to be precisely sideways, and can't even tell which side is supposed to be sideways, since it's all square?

Last Spring a teenage gal and her mom came up the trail and spotted me with my 8x10 set up. After I took the shot, the girl asked to look under the dark cloth, and pronounced what she saw,"cool". But then she asked me if that is how the image is always going to be, since there is no digital app available to reorient it like in a "regular" cell phone image. Her mother chuckled, and politely informed her that once framed, the picture can simply be hung any way one chooses.

 

[momus]

I guess the definition of waist-level might depend on where your waist might be. Here's Reinhold Heidecke, the inventor of the Rolleiflex:

Looking at that picture, it was either come up w/ a camera you could rest on your belly, or go on a diet. Inventing the 'flex was surely the easier route. Another one of them necessity being the mother of invention kind of things.

 

[guangong]

Wimps. Pentax themselves made all kinds of teles way way bigger and heavier than that Olympic Sonnar. But I guess the puppy farms raising little Hassie Hounds aren't used to that kind of option. Once a square, alway a square, locked in the same square dog pen. Such a lack of thinking outside the box! Don't worry, soon I'll seek crowdfunding to launch my helium-filled bellows patent into production; the bigger the camera, the lighter it will be.

Incidentally, when did "walking around with a camera" mean that you can't walk around carrying a tripod at the same time? That pretty much solves the whole problem. And "waist level finders" don't necessarily have to be used only in that manner, though it might be helpful to share personal tips how to do that best. Personally, I prefer a tripod even in that case. The shot is almost hopeless with a tele otherwise. Or take your Hassie to the moon like the Apollo crew, where the tug of gravity if far less an issue. Next time they'll take a real Pentax 67 instead; it always helps to learn from your mistakes.

My, my, children get so excited about trivial things.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My, my, children get so excited about trivial things.

+2

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, time to grow up and get into large format and sheet film!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, time to grow up and get into large format and sheet film!

BTDT back to 6x6

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

C'Mon. Who goes around in a white shirt trying to stare over their own belly. Might as well use a TLR like the other guy. But I don't know why he's wearing a white shirt either. Just more glare on the screen either way. No wonder it's such a Bad-Hassle. And as far as level without a rotating back, well, what do you do on the equator where you need to be precisely sideways, and can't even tell which side is supposed to be sideways, since it's all square?

Last Spring a teenage gal and her mom came up the trail and spotted me with my 8x10 set up. After I took the shot, the girl asked to look under the dark cloth, and pronounced what she saw,"cool". But then she asked me if that is how the image is always going to be, since there is no digital app available to reorient it like in a "regular" cell phone image. Her mother chuckled, and politely informed her that once framed, the picture can simply be hung any way one chooses.

That's how I hung this picture. More interesting.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That looks great that way, Alan.

 

[moto-uno]

Haven't noticed any remarks about using slide film and actually viewing the image on a screen .
After searching for 6x7 projectors , you'd probably stick with the 6x6 format ( that's what eventually
led to the sale of my marvelous Mamiya 7) ! But when printing , well that's another story . Peter

 

[DREW WILEY]

I once put a number of 6X7 chromes into Gepe AN glass slide mounts. Any extra sum of money you put into one of those big projectors will be offset by a reduction in your ordinary home heating bill. You won't need anything else to heat the room!