Pentax 67 sharper than Hasselblad?

[Peter de Groot]

Is it possible that the focusing screen is more accurately placed in the Pentax than it is in the Hasselblad?


Steve.

That Mamiya 7 is a rangefinder? So no focussing screen? That would make the Mamiya a better camera?
>-)

[Steve Smith]

That Mamiya 7 is a rangefinder? So no focussing screen?

But we were comparing a Pentax 67 and a Hasselblad.


Steve.

[Peter de Groot]

oops excuse me. I had the article in mind when I read and replied to your and Verney's reply.

[df cardwell]

This is weird. Back in the PrePhotoSteamPunk days of the 20th century, when pros shot film, LOTS of top commercial shooters used Pentax 67 and nobody thought twice about the religious aspect of what one shot. Great cameras, great systems, and - thank goodness - DIFFERENT.

The kind of work you did, and where you did it, made the system choice for you. Hassie shooters could own a minimal kit, and rent the backs and all the lenses, on the clients dime, and that was the common urban/photo center way to go. You also had your Hassie repair shop because it was a complex system and the leaf shutters (and ham handed assistants) meant that you usually had something in the shop all the time. Not the Pentax, but it was a different cat altogether. No Polaroid capacity, limited flash capacity, and you couldn't change backs (although the bodies were cheaper than Hassie backs). But which was sharper ? I never knew a Pentax guy who was starving because his pics weren't first rate.

The real pity was that the Rollei 6000 series never broke through the Hassie fog; replacing the leaf shutter with servos was brilliant, and it was a great system, but Hassie had locked the USA market by giving superb service and support that went back to the 60's when it was sold by Paillard - Rollei was always an orphan and the support was never established. Same with Bronica (at least in some regions)- service support was awful. Mamiya made a great effort in the closing years of The Film Era to upgrade their cameras for the hard use they came to receive.

Babbling, I guess. You guys shoulda seen 6x7 Kodachrome. OOOh, baby.

[DanielStone]

df,

6x7 kodachromes, I can only imagine !

-Dan

[dpurdy]

I think the OP was merely expressing surprise that the Hasselblad didn't knock the socks off the Pentax in high rez scans. Personally I think that must have been partly from user error with the Hasselblad, which is capable of knocking the socks off some really fine competitor optics. The Pentax has really fine optics but shouldn't come out ahead of the Hasselblad in sharpness. Some Pentax lenses have the quality of looking sharp even if they are slightly off, at least mine do, I suppose that is due to contrast. I have done manic testing with my 6 Pentax lenses (some newer some older) vs Rolleiflex lenses by putting the cameras on a heavy tripod in a dark basement and making exposures by turning the lights on and off, which takes the shutter vibration out of the variables. Not one of the Pentax lenses quite holds up to the resolution of the Rollei lenses (both Planar and Xenotar). But it is close. Certainly if you use mirror lock up you will have no complaints in use with the Pentax 67.
Dennis

[hidesert]

Pardon my ignorance, I've not used either of these systems, but are we comparing a 6x7 Pentax frame with a 4.5x6 crop of a 6x6 Hasselblad? And folks are still expecting the Hasselblad to be sharper?

[borisdeswan]

I can't resist adding my 2 cents worth. I've owned and shot Pentax 6x7 stuff for close to 3 decades, deriving ontold professional and personal satisfaction. A few years ago I gave in to temptation and bought a Hassy and today I have 3 with several lenses to go with my 6 pentax lenses.
So both systems have co-existed in my photographical life in a very happy way.I'm very satisfied and must say that I have shot the same subject ( the trunk of a tree with rough bark ) with tripod mounted Pentax and 165 mm. f 4 lens and an also tripod mounted 501c with a 150 mm sonnar t lens using kodak t400cn film. with this film differences in developing are eliminated. ¿ results? Most definite a tie. If there ever was a difference maker it would be the extra cm. that 6x7 gives you. From my experience, technique, composition and most definitely passion and a clear photographic concept are going to have a much, much more deep impact in your photography than one brand of camera or lens. Sure a Carl Zeiss fish eye is much better than the pentax one, but so is the cost. However pentax lenses like the 45, 55, 75 or the 200mm are stellar. Still the bottom line is the ultimate photograph you end up delivering or posting or hanging on the wall, and when you or someone else sees it, it is appreciated or not, regardless of the equipment used to make it. Cheers. Boris.

[jovo]

I think the larger Pentax negative may suggest slightly greater sharpness at the same magnification, but the leaf shutter on the 'Blad vs the curtain on the Pentax might obviate the difference rendering the Pentax negative equal to, or less sharp than the 'Blad. I've used a P67 with 55, 105, and 200 mm lenses for about a dozen or so years, and sharpness has never, ever been an issue except for a NYC rooftop shot that kept the shutter open for 45 seconds, and, when enlarged significantly, showed a tiny double image of every specular highlight detail because of the shutter (I used MLU) I think.

[herb]

I have both. Both do very well. I also have a hassy clone, Hartblei, that does better than my Hasselblad 80mm with its 45mm t/s lens. The sharpness champ of all my lenses, however goes to a 305mm f9 G Claron, a process lens.

The cult of various cameras has been way overblown, sometimes successfully, by the mfgs and their users.